Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oregon

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Oregon. 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|Oregon|~~~~}} 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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Oregon. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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/Oregon/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Oregon

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 Evans Creek (Rogue River tributary). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Creek (Oregon)

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

No indication of notability; subject is noted within parent topic (Evans Creek (Rogue River tributary)) Headphase (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the article alone can be dangerous. There are some states in the U.S. where the creeks, along which settlement grew, are copiously documented and indeed are the primary historic geographical features, and the pathetic mass-created GNIS-sourced stubs hide extensive scope. One always has to do the research. Researching, I can come up with Wimer, Oregon as a documented place, but not extensive documentation of this specific creek within it. Even the 1913 mining report puts this creek under the heading "Evans Creek District". And Pleasant Armstrong died in the Battle of Evans Creek in the "Rogue River Indian War" according to (an old article by) the Oregon Historical Society, citing Albert G. Walling's 1884 History of Southern Oregon which documents Woodville, Oregon and names Armstrong as "One of the affluents of Evan's Creek". So it's all Evans Creek. Uncle G (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Evans Creek (Rogue River tributary). I've found no evidence of meeting WP:SIGCOV or WP:GEOLAND. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 12:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Powledge

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:COLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish Dallas Morning News wouldn't paywall their stuff (is that a verb?) -- the Huntsville article is a good feature story. The "Oregon Ducks" source is not independent, but a quick web search turns his name a lot in many news articles, and so many mentions in articles about other feature stories speaks to WP:IMPACT. While not every assistant football coach is notable, this one appears to be.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per Paulmdconald. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2022 (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Dexter

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

Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. I cannot find any reliable coverage in a WP:BEFORE search. GPL93 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any reliable sources, all that comes up when I search the name are their personal website/linkedin/zoominfo/etc. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote per below. I'm convinced enough with sources presented by Eddy. SBKSPP (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an expert on the notability standards for models but she appears to pass it. There are several sources in the article and I was able to find [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these appear to be particularly notability-lending. 1 is an interview with a non-reliable blog that refers to itself as a "DIY" Punk news site; 2 is an interview on the blog section of a website for a company that does hair and makeup for weddings, 3 is also an interview with a non-reliable blog where articles are submitted from freelancers/outside contributors and then published; 4 is a listicle , 5 is a community college student newspaper, and 6 appears to be paid given the sales pitch at the end. GPL93 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the analysis above that shows that none of the presented sources add at all towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Eddy. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing references are not good and are promotional blog posts or empty pages. Looking at the new sources, I agree with GPL93, 1, 2 & 3 are biographical but not very in depth and are blog interviews by fans, 4 is basically a caption on a photo and 5 & 6 are thinly disguised ads for her store and clothing line, not anything biographical. I will say that she seems to be well-known in the small pinup world but I think the best that could be written with these sources is a fan page, not a Wikipedia article.

Given the focus on youth in the modeling world, I don't know if more reliable sources will be forthcoming in the future if the main focus in this article is on her modeling career. If her businesses take off, that could be another story but they don't meet our notability standard at this point in time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 24 February 2022 (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.

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Merge proposals

Notability issues

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Notability Project (originally at Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability/Listing by project/Page 3) for a [very out of date] bot-produced page of WP:ORE articles tagged with the {{notability}} template, now updated by hand. Please strike out and/or leave a {{done}} template along with a short note re: what was decided about the article.

Oregon

Pleasant Creek (Oregon)

Matt Powledge

Bernie Dexter

Categories

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Merge proposals

Notability issues