Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Georgia (U.S. state)

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Georgia (U.S. state).

Further information

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

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Georgia (U.S. state)/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Georgia (U.S. state) AfDs

Scan for Georgia (U.S. state) Prods
Scan for Georgia (U.S. state) template TfDs

Georgia[edit]

Phil Agcaoili[edit]

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

Almost entirely the work of User:Greyhat, who, based on the deleted edit summaries for File:Phil Agcaoili 2011.jpg, has been in personal contact with the subject. Unclear the subject is notable, and the article is highly promotional. The company he founded is apparently not notable enough to have an article. -- Beland (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SagamoreHill Broadcasting[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of in-depth coverage. PROD was contested so bringing it to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While I am unable to find indepth articles specifically about SagamoreHill Broadcasting, I did see plenty of articles that mention the company and articles about the stations it owns. Hkkingg (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

938749233[edit]

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

No indication of notability, fails WP:NNUMBER with zero interesting mathematical properties. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Does not meet WP:NNUMBER and the only source is a random census count. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Would be pretty surprised if this doesn't SNOW. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NNUMBER as a number with no discovered interesting properties. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "One number found in a census count" doesn't get you an article, no matter how hard you try. This isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Sadustu Tau (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A look at the actual page in question does not find this number — only the consecutive numbers 938, 749, and 233 on one row (the first one labeled "Persons under 18 years"). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete Completely unnotable, I would PROD this article if I could but now that we are having this AfD we should SNOW delete. Air on White (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Calloway Ross, Jr.[edit]

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

Dubious notability, zero hits from RS in Google, created by an SPA intent on promoting a business the article's subject managed Fastily 20:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Alabama and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish what the individual is actually notable for - no notable achievements apart from running a small local funeral parlour. Dan arndt (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I don't see any notability for this person either. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the concerns raised about the article's subject, David Calloway Ross, Jr. However, I'd like to provide additional context and evidence to support his notability. While it's true that Ross's achievements may not be globally recognized, his contributions to the local community and funeral services industry are significant. As the president and funeral director of Ross-Clayton Funeral Home, he has:Continued the legacy of his family's business, which has been serving the community for over 100 years; Provided leadership and guidance to the funeral home, ensuring its continued operation and service to the community; Demonstrated a commitment to the local community through his involvement in various organizations and initiatives; Regarding the lack of Google search results, I'd like to point out that not all notable individuals have a strong online presence. This doesn't diminish Ross's achievements or impact on the community.
  As for the article being created by a single-purpose account (SPA), I assure you that my intention is not to promote a business but to document Ross's historical significance and contributions. I believe the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and verifiability. Ross's achievements may not be widely recognized, but they are notable in the context of his community and industry. I'm willing to work with you to improve the article and address any concerns. Please consider retaining the article. Mcrossphd (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Currently he does NOT meet our requirements; what is needed is reliable secondary sourcing. You argued that the Ross-Clayton funeral home is the oldest in the city--that's not even verified and I'm not sure it's true. There's a few mentions in a few books, but nothing of significance. If you would produce reliable secondary sources, that would be a different matter. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article on the business by Brad Harper is maybe a small step on the way to notability, but that's for the business, not the person. I note also that neither Harper nor the historical marker (I'm surprised the Alabama Historical Society accepted that text) make the "oldest funeral home" claim. BTW I'm about to write up the article on Lincoln Cemetery--there is no doubt that that is notable, on the basis of secondary sources and history. For this person, that argument is hard to make though perhaps the business might be notable. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sir, please review Historical Marker Database for reliable source for Ross Clayton Funeral Home's History. Also view link for David Callaway Ross's notability references Mcrossphd (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mrcrossphd, please don't call me "sir"--"Drmies" will do just fine, thanks. Historical markers are not generally accepted as acceptable secondary sources here, and that particular text is so blatantly non-neutral. Let me put it another way: it would be somewhat silly to dispute the facts on a marker (the Historical Association--Scotty Kirkland runs that--checks it) but we shouldn't be using historical markers as the basis for our articles. A historical marker is an indication of some importance, but not by itself a guarantor of notability. I've done that Google search, but better: I looked at Google News and Google Books. Your search, unfortunately, does not deliver a single reliable secondary source; if you correct "callaway" to "calloway" and check news, you at least get the obituary from WSFA, but that's really all. If you had checked "books", you'd have found this--but again, that's not much. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I want to highlight two references regarding Ross Clayton Funeral Home notability as mentioned in ref. 1 and ref. 2.also see Google Search Result Mcrossphd (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMUB-LD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Merge with Mercer University#Student life. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WYGA-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: This station has been around a bit longer than many other HC2/Innovate stations, but it doesn't appear to have ever been anything other than a carrier of full-time national services—or, more relevantly, the subject of any significant coverage—in all that time. A remnant of the looser inclusion standards of 2006, and another nominal survivor of the 2023 bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles, WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSKC-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WDWW-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Looks like this has only carried full-time national services in its nearly 20 years, even before DTV America/HC2/Innovate took over. I doubt this station has had any significant coverage at any point. A remnant of the lower inclusion standards of 2009, and yet another nominal survivor of a 2023 bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WUVM-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: The ex-Una Vez Más stations may be a marginal step up from the completely non-notable HC2/Innovate stations that have never been anything else (complete with securing cable and even satellite coverage), but with little-to-no significant coverage that means little by the more GNG-based 2024 inclusion standards (and the station's earliest days were as a definitely non-notable ValueVision/ShopNBC repeater). (This article has been around since 2004, which was a time of far lower inclusion standards sitewide; keep in mind, this topic area was lax about inclusion standards almost right up to this 2021 RfC.) This happens to be another a nominal survivor of the 2023 bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles; that it was nominated there and then does not suggest the existence of the required sourcing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrell Hines[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:SIGCOV. In the article, sources are greatly lacking, and the ones seems unreliable. Applicable to WP:INTERVIEW. Maybe per WP:ATD, It do be redirected to List of American musicians. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [1], [2], [3], [and [4] doesn't make up WP:NSONG. Apart from one or two being an interview is not a criteria for inclusion. Then musician hasn't meet any of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC, but this few mentions shows there is possibility of being notable in the future. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as well as the above-mentioned sources, there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306, but [I]t doesn't mean the article is notable. That as why I said "may be notable in the future." Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States[edit]

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

Most likely fails WP:NLIST, consists of 60% red links. WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies, and I didn't find WP:RS describing this list besides third-party directories. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The links I clicked on had no references at all, or none that would count as reliable sources. Didn't check all of them. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the listed clubs are local organizations which would be unlikely to satisfy the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Hence, this looks mostly like a directory, which Wikipedia isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This list is self-defining, and does not require extensive documentation. So far around twenty entries are individually notable, and the reasons suggested for deletion are not persuasive: 1) the number of redlinks is irrelevant; there is potential for expansion, and the list would be perfectly valid if the items were not linked, as long as it's possible to verify the existence of items that don't have their own articles; for this, third-party directories are fine. That said, some effort to document them is necessary, but fixing that is part of the normal editing process, not a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for locating sources.

2) none of the criteria of the cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply; this seems to be one of those policies that people cite because it sounds like it would apply, apparently without bothering to read and understand it. Specifically: this is not a "simple listing without contextual information"; the context is clearly given. It is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics; the items on the list are all closely connected by subject matter. It is not a cross-categorization. It has nothing to do with genealogy. It is not a program guide. It is not a business resource. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about collections of information that have no encyclopedic value for readers; this list clearly has value. "This list is full of redlinks and doesn't have enough sources" is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a reason to improve the list. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P Aculeius, those are all very good points, thanks for pointing them out. However, you have not addressed how this list meets WP:NLIST, do you think you could explain how it would to justify a speedy keep, as the fact that the entries themselves are notable does not guaranty the list itself being notable? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if hypothetically NLIST was not met (which I believe it is), WP:LISTPURP suggests that there would still be other grounds to keep.

As prodder and nom, you have not shown any evidence of having demonstrated WP:BEFORE due diligence. The plethora of Google results for searches like "stamp clubs in America" suggests that this was not done. It isn’t really the most GF behavior to simply, since the burden of proof generally lies with the “keep” side once process has begun, make a prod or AfD nomination without actually determining if there’s a prima facie case for a notability or verifiability challenge.

Sorry for the sharpness, but sometimes it’s necessary.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as deprodder. In my view it meets WP:LISTPURP and WP:NLIST and I feel this is a commonsensical call. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm just not seeing this. The NY society's building is historic, but when you look at sources about these places, even the few with articles really don't seem notable. And anyway, what are the sources for this list? I'm looking at the listing from Linn's Stamp News, and it's far more complete and is up-to-date; it's also clear that most of the listings would never garner an article. I don't see the point of duplicating a not-very-useful subset of thei info (just the names), and once we go past that, we're in WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]