User talk:Let'srun

Marquee Broadcasting
Why have you proposed deleting Marquee Broadcasting? The company is a small broadcaster but it does own several major network affiliates around the country. Sure, it does not have the size of Nexstar or Sinclair, but why do you believe it should be deleted? There is plenty of sourced material in the article. In addition, why not nominate Sunbeam Television if you do not believe information about small broadcasters should be available on a Wikipedia page? KansasCityKSMO (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Deprodding of Marquee Broadcasting
I have removed the tag from Marquee Broadcasting, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Chaswmsday (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. It is outrageous that it was even being considered for deletion. KansasCityKSMO (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This user appears to be a member of Association of Deletionist Wikipedians, although they have not yet officially joined. The article for KNOV-CD was swiftly deleted with no debate, and the redirect is to a very messy page, which has multiple sections for New Orleans under the low power stations category, instead of just one section. Someone somehow got confused and tagged a station as both New Orleans and Houma, while stations can only have one transmitter. If there is a repeater for Houma, it should be listed separately.
 * KNOV-CD hosts One America News Network on subchannel 41-2 in the New Orleans metro, which is notable because OANN is notable, and OANN does not have _any_ listed OTA affiliates. --TIB (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Deprodding of KBEO
I have removed the tag from KBEO, which you proposed for deletion. Could find some sources; feel free to send to AFD if you can't. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Lists for deletion
I have favored the deletion of the sports team lists. Sports teams named Trojans should be among them. WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

G11
I've declined a few of your G11 requests. The latest, Tribal Research Institute and Museum makes no sense to me. How does that qualify for G11? -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Apologies, meant to tag as A7. Let&#39;srun (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nox (platform) does not qualify for G11 as well. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure why, it seems pretty clear cut to me. Let&#39;srun (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which sentence or paragraph makes you think that the article is unambiguously promotional? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "To a developer, NOX:
 * Provides a C++ OpenFlow 1.0 API
 * Provides fast, asynchronous IO
 * Is targeted at recent Linux distributions.
 * Includes sample components for:
 * Topology discovery
 * Learning switch
 * Network-wide switch" Let&#39;srun (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not make it unambiguously promotional as even if you remove it's usage, there is salvageable content remaining. FWIW, I have rephrased it. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Sports overcategorization
I recently had 4 articles I had edited get revered. This is the general tone of the edit summaries. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk'') It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry, this is just ludicrous. First off, external links are not always reliable sources, so just using them to push categories directly is problematic. Beyond this, categories are supposed to link something that means something. They need to be "defining". If playing for a team was so non-defining to a person that we do not even mention it anywhere in the text of the article, not even in a table, we should not categorize by it. This makes me think that at some level team played for becomes to close to performance by performer categories. I am sorry, but we should not be categorizing anyone by 18 different teams played, especially with the amount of other categories sports people are placed in. At least not when we do not even mention in any way all 18 teams in the article.''John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not WP:FORUMSHOP. Discuss the matter at one place only, per WP:MULTI. I suggest Wikipedia talk:Categorization as that is fairly central, and has attracted three replies. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)