Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 8: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Twinkle Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monarch Mountain (ski area)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Storm (webtoon)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Storm (webtoon)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Lost (company) (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Lost (company) (2nd nomination)}}

Revision as of 02:38, 8 July 2024

< July 07 July 09 >

Purge server cache

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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch Mountain (ski area)

Monarch Mountain (ski area) (edit | 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)

Written like an advertisement, no references cited, no indication of notability. These are long-standing issues (5+ years) with no attempts made by other editors to fix. Ultimately, this could probably be deleted and merged into Monarch Pass. GSK (talk • edits) 04:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame (2023). Skiing in Colorado. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4671-6055-1. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Monarch Pass, c. 1936. People have been skiing the mountains surrounding the valley of Monarch Mountain since 1914. Monarch's first unofficial winter season was in 1936, when James Kane and the Salida Winter Sports Club brought a Chevy truck engine up Monarch Pass highway. Other skiers instrumental in the initial opening of the area were Thor Groswold, Sven Wiik, and Charlie Vail. By 1939, the club applied to the US Forest Service for a permit to cut trails, construct a lodge, and erect a lift. The first run cut at Monarch was Gunbarrel, an expert trail with a 30 percent slope. During the first official ski season of 1939–1940, season passes cost $1. Rope tow revenues netted over $50, with 25¢ day tickets. Ownership of the resort changed multiple times, with each change resulting in additional lifts, more terrain, and a base lodge. Stability returned to Monarch in the 1990s after a turbulent decade throughout the 1980s when the area filed for bankruptcy. In 2006, the Mirkwood Basin opened to skiers and riders willing to hike."

    2. Mait, Sandy (2021-01-11). "Monarch Mountain: One of Colorado's Best- Kept—and Snowy—Secrets". Ski. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

      The review notes: "Monarch is rare in the ski-resort world, running on 100 percent natural snow (about 350 inches annually) leading to the resort’s motto “We don’t make snow. Mother Nature does.” The resort’s base elevation of nearly 11,000 feet helps keep the snow fluffy and frequent. And most of the more difficult trails remain un-groomed, providing a true backcountry feel with the ease of chairlift access. And for anyone looking for more than a backcountry feel, there are 130 acres of hike-to terrain."

    3. Scoville, Peter (January–February 2012). "Monarch Mountain". Skiing. EBSCOhost 70248700.

      The review notes: "I first discovered Monarch Mountain in the winter of 1995. I was on my annual pilgrimage from the Front Range to Crested Butte for its ski-for-free weekend when we pulled our old Subaru Outback, bottoming out under five ski buddies and gear, off U.S. Highway 50 into the area's dirt parking lot for a pee break. ... Somewhere between cheap lift tickets, nine inches of fresh pow, nonexistent lift lines, and steep shots like Gunbarrel and High Anxiety that filled back in after every lap, I fell in love with Monarch Mountain. We ended the day in the Sidewinder Saloon, Monarch's only bar, for an après-ski scene that embodied all of the comfort and camaraderie a down-home, slopeside watering hole should. Though I didn't realize it then, that chance stop sold me on the beauty of Monarch and reminded me why I love skiing. Fast-forward 16 years, and nothing much has changed at Monarch. It now sports a terrain park and new steep lines and tree runs that came with the 130-acre expansion into Mirkwood Basin, but those improvements only built upon the fundamentals: deep snow, few crowds, and an unpretentious group of hardcore skiers and beginners alike."

      The review provides more information: "Average Snowfall: 350 inches. Skiable Acres: 800. Vertical Feet: 1,162. Advanced/Expert Terrain: 58%. Lift Ticket Price: $57."

    4. Osberger, Madeleine (2017-02-10). "Monarch Mountain Keeps it Real". Aspen Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

      The article notes: "For this special occasion, deep-winter getaway, a retro theme seemed apropos, with “most snow” and “funky factor” used as criteria for mountain selection. Monarch Mountain, circa 1939, which has been getting hammered by storms all season, won out. Modest in vertical rise — just 1,162 feet of elevation gain between its 10,790-foot base and the 11,952-foot peak – Monarch packs a lot of punch and fall-line skiing into an area slightly larger than Aspen Mountain. At the start of an early January storm that would drop 35 inches in less than 24 hours, we set out from Aspen for a deceptively long drive given Monarch’s close-as-the-crow-flies location (like Crested Butte) in the central Rockies."

    5. Blevins, Jason (2023-10-02). "Monarch Mountain plans new terrain as visitation, pass sales soar". The Colorado Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

      The article notes: "Monarch ski area is busy. Pass sales more than doubled in the past three seasons. Skiers have flocked to the Chaffee County ski area, with visitation reaching more than 210,000 in 2022-23, up from 140,000 when Bob Nicolls led his investment group to buy the 800-acre ski area in 2002. "

    6. Willard, Heather (2024-03-04). "Monarch Mountain's 377-acre expansion clears environmental assessment". KDVR. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

      The article notes: "This project has been years in the making. PowderMonarch LLC, which owns Monarch Mountain ski area, filed its application for the expansion on Oct. 6, 2021. Monarch is also one of the oldest ski areas in the state, having first opened to the public in 1939, according to the Forest Service’s environmental assessment of the project."

    7. Boster, Seth (2019-12-16). "In 80th year, party rolls on at Monarch Ski Area". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

      The article notes: "The ski area had built itself on grit. Locals in 1936 formed a sports club on the mountain, powering a shoddy rope tow with a six-cylinder truck engine. The pass was finished over the next few years, spelling greater access and higher popularity. ... All the while, Monarch has resisted the industry trend of glitz and conglomeration. Possibly on deck for the future: a terrain expansion on the mountain’s backside, along with another lift."

    8. Harmon, Tracy (2014-12-21). "Monarch celebrates 75 happy holidays". The Pueblo Chieftain. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

      The article notes: "Monarch Mountain has come a long way from a one-run wonder to the 75-year-old beauty it is today. When Monarch opened in 1939, it was constructed by Works Project Administration workers and featured a 500-foot rope tow driven by a gear box from an old oil derrick. Today, Monarch features six chair lifts and 54 runs plus nearly 1,000 acres of back country skiing opportunities."

    9. LeBlanc, Pam (March 2021). "Colorado Ski Gems". Austin Travels Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

      The article notes: "I’ve always bypassed Monarch, assuming it didn’t have enough terrain to keep me interested. I was wrong. The cozy, 800-acre ski area doesn’t have any on-mountain lodging. The closest is the no-frills Monarch Mountain Lodge a few miles away, where you can get a room for about $100 and a free shuttle to the ski resort. Nearby, you can explore restaurants and shops in town, swim laps at the Salida Hot Springs Aquatic Center downtown, or detour over to Mount Princeton Hot Springs Resort after a day of skiing and plop yourself into a pool of steamy water right along a riverbank. Monarch Mountain officially opened as a ski area in 1939, but its off-the-beaten path location means it’s less crowded."

    10. Hirschfeld, Cindy (2020-11-25). "7 Places Where the Slopes Are Less Skied". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-11-25. Retrieved 2024-07-01.

      The article notes: "For more than 80 years, this central Colorado ski area along the Continental Divide has drawn powderhounds. Its fairly modest size — 800 acres and a 1,100-foot vertical drop — is counterbalanced by 350 inches of average annual snowfall that can stay untracked for several days past a storm, plus guided snowcat skiing on 1,600 additional acres of advanced terrain. Experts also love the hike-to, backcountry-style runs in Mirkwood Basin. Recent required thinning of pine-beetle-stricken trees has opened up more gladed skiing across the mountain. (Denver-based Meier Skis sells custom Monarch models using some of that harvested wood.) Many guests opt to stay in the artsy, riverside town of Salida, 20 miles east."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Monarch Mountain to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Cunard's large number of sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2024 (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 no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: closure amended per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 30 to delete. Daniel (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Storm (webtoon)

Red Storm (webtoon) (edit | 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)

Fails significant coverage. The little commentary I found is in this CBR listicle, others are just plot summary and mention in other listicles. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could there be Korean sources we're missing? Not to say it might not be non-notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows? Maybe you can find them? I can't read Korean. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG, before you nominate articles for deletion, you really should search in the native language of the topic. As you're the one making the proposal, I'd argue the burden of proof is on you to follow through with it. With machine translation it's really not that hard, as you only need a high-level understanding of what each source says. Almost every day I see deletion nominations like these.
That said, I'm leaning delete. I'm a Korean speaker and didn't find much convincing sigcov. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – I am not an expert at Korean sources and cannot quite tell you which of these sources are reliable right now, but this is what I'm finding:
  • gameca.com, three paragraphs as part of a list.
  • techm.kr, three paragraphs as part of a list.
  • news.nate.com, listed entry, basically nothing.
  • news.nate.com, listed entry, basically nothing.
  • mk.co.kr, listed entry, basically nothing.
  • yna.co.kr, listed entry, basically nothing.
  • chosun.com, author quote, basically nothing.
  • sisaprime.co.kr, listed entry that is given ridiculously high praise (Google Translate gives me Kakao Webtoon, which has created major action/martial arts/fantasy masterpieces that will leave a lasting mark in webtoon history, such as .. Red Storm. Segye.com might be a copy, extremely similar text)
I currently have no idea which of these are reliable, but sourcing is fairly weak either way. If someone can find better sources I haven't found yet, I'd be happy to see them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Korean here-- of the ones you've listed, the only widespread sources I can see are Nate News, Yonhap News (YNA), and Chosun Ilbo, none of which have coverage focused on said Webtoon. Though the KakaoPage website indicates that there's about 4 million subscribers to the Webtoon, I'd still argue delete here since I can't find any significant coverage that would warrant an article. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 02:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 22 July 2024 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too Lost (company)

AfDs for this article:
Too Lost (company) (edit | 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)

Still unclear if there's enough independent coverage for WP:NCORP.

Previous AfD was speedied per the author's request. Also speedied for copyvio Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Lost, also deleted under G12 KH-1 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, two previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 15 July 2024 (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 1989–90 Arsenal F.C. season#Results. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy

Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy (edit | 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)

Non-notable individual pre-season friendly club match. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – to 1989–90 Arsenal F.C. season#Results. Lacks standalone notability as sources which provide significant coverage have not been established. Frank Anchor 03:26, 13 July 2024 (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. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFhost

TFhost (edit | 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)

I'm not seeing much third party coverage, likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Unclear how much weight should be given to those awards. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are a clearly denegrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. This nomination should be rescinded and article kept. 4555hhm (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 4555hhm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sourcing is the usual regurgitation or company PR and the "awards" may be verifiable but they are not sufficiently significant to meet notability criteria. HighKing++ 17:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are clearly denigrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Even though GNG/WP:GNG as regards sources clearly states, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. WP:ORGSIG"However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." This nomination should be rescinded and article kept.@HighKing 4555hhm (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)) [reply]
    • Comment OK 4555hhm, notwithstanding your request to apply different standards to small African companies, you've said that winning an award should be counted towards notability. WP:ORGTRIV says that non-notable awards aren't counted towards notability and if this award were notable, I'd expect it to have significant coverage or discussion, be recognised internationally, or even have its own WP page. This doesn't appear to be the case and in my experience, most "industry" awards are not notable. You also say you can identify more than 4 sources which meet the criteria - but you didn't list even one such source. Not sure if you're including the article about the award by the ADR, but that article's content fails to include in-depth "Independent Content" - for example, it is easily proven not to be "Independent" since it is a word for word copy of an article in Nairaland (can't link to it because WP doesn't allow it) nairaland.com/4816995/tfhost-awarded-hosting-provider-year this article published on the same date (without an accredited journalist) and this in Nigeria Communications Week. In addition, this copy relies entirely on information provided by the company including quotes from a company officer. Also, to complete your quote from ORGSIG you must also remember that No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. HighKing++ 15:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear from more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 22 July 2024 (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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delight Mobile

Delight Mobile (edit | 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)

This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.

The other four are:

Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The few existing sources:
Are anyone of these affiliated? Have google searches been done? Mrfoogles (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are barely-rehashed product release announcements – textbook trivial coverage that doesn't contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 14:31, 8 July 2024 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oggcast

Oggcast (edit | 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)

There are no sources establishing WP:N. The definition is based on a 2016 blog entry apparently by the main contributor to the article. The rest of the sources appear to discuss the Ogg and MP3 codecs, their history and merits - but not the topic of the article (the link for the last source that might have contained some information does not work, but the site does not appear to be a good WP:RS). The article was WP:BLARed in January of the 2016, but restored per the Articlefy (without prejudice) result of an RfD WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_31#Oggcast. The article was WP:PRODded in January 2012, so going the AfD route. Викидим (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article lacked notability at the time of creation and the passage of time has only made that more clear. Brandon (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no non-blog available sources other than things used for original research; even if the term was notable it could easily and more appropriately be under OGG. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a notable concept, unable to find reliable sources. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This feels like more of a snobby and complex WP:HOWTO about how to listen to non-notable podcasts made that way on purpose because of a bizarre hate of an industry standard file format, and only one of them has a bluelink (and moved onto acceptance of MP3 long ago). I'm not saying Ogg is a bad format at all, just that this is a niche that nobody for a high-quality open audio format is searching for (people talking about the format they're listening to when MP3 serves that purpose just fine and plays on anything). Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsensical article thinly veiled as a promotion for non-notable podcasts. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 08:56, 9 July 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_July_8&oldid=1233249211"