Points of interest related to Nebraska on Wikipedia: Outline –  History –  Portal –  Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
( talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Nebraska. 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:

1. 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.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Nebraska|~~~~}} 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 Nebraska.

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/Nebraska/archive

Riverfront Broadcasting

Riverfront Broadcasting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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 significant, independent coverage of the company. The current sources are either press releases or are covering routine business transactions, and a BEFORE check didn't come up with much better. Let'srun ( talk) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Let'srun ( talk) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Chad Crandell

Chad Crandell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

He played only at amateur level and several searches brought up very, very little of anything, much less WP:SIGCOV. So fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann ( talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann ( talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Iowa, Nebraska, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - @ GiantSnowman:, I found [1], [2], [3], [4] among more sources. Player who made 80+ pro USL appearances and defnitley has more offline sources haivng played for years in pre-internet era. Article needs imporvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 20:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Joshua Michael McConkey

Joshua Michael McConkey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of an as yet unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability test at NPOL is winning the election and thereby holding office, while unelected candidates must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons independently of their candidacy, or (b) show credible reasons why their candidacy is a special case of much greater significance than most other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced 50 per cent to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and 50 per cent to a tiny blip of coverage in the context of him tangentially winning a tidy but not massive sum of money in the lottery, which is not in and of itself a reason why his candidacy would be special.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for an article to already exist now. Bearcat ( talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and North Carolina. Bearcat ( talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Bearcat. I came across this article previously and would have nominated it for deletion but did not then have time to do a proper before. JSFarman ( talk) 19:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Medicine, Nebraska, Ohio, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete completely non-notable former congressional candidate. I was about to nominate for deletion when I saw it was already nominated. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 08:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

KEEP additional categories and notoriety, WP:AUTHOR award-winning published author WP:ACTOR credited actor 57.140.28.16 ( talk) 16:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

KEEP: Additionally, He is a Colonel and Commander in the United States Air Force. 136.54.185.219 ( talk) 13:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment He does not meet the inclusion criteria as either an actor or a writer. He has two (very) minor acting credits (as "Westlake Party-Goer" in Buck Alamo, and an uncredited role as "Launch Room Control Operator" in Transformers: Dark of the Moon). The Independent Press Award is not credible; it is sponsored by an organization (or person) that charges $125 to enter a book in any of 150 categories and sells book reviews. JSFarman ( talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

KEEP: As do all Book Contests, there are entry fees. The book beat thousands of entries from across the world. The Independent Press Award is credible.

Writers are not automatically notable just for winning just any award that exists — the award itself has to pass notability criteria as an award before it can make its winners notable for winning it, which means the reference for the award win has to be media coverage treating the award win as news, not the award's own self-published website about itself. And actors are not automatically notable just because acting roles have been had — a person gets over notability criteria as an actor by having reliable source coverage about their acting roles shown in media, not just by having an IMDB profile. Bearcat ( talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR, and has coverage well below what is needed to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 15:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: does not meet WP:NPOL before being elected, nothing else to meet WP:GNG. Melcous ( talk) 09:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States

List of stamp clubs and philatelic societies in the United States (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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

• 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
• Keep per WP:BEFORE - while stamp collecting is not the huge hobby it was a couple of decades ago, there is a huge literature on such clubs. Bearian ( talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. "There is a huge literature on such clubs"....it would help, of course, if examples were provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply