Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Washington: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 6: Line 6:

==Washington==

==Washington==

<!– New AFD’s should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line –>

<!– New AFD’s should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line –>

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khai Brisco}}

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Gilbertson (climber) (3rd nomination)}}

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Gilbertson (climber) (3rd nomination)}}

{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Garret_Cord_Werner}}

{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Garret_Cord_Werner}}

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

Khai Brisco (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)

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let’srun (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gilbertson (climber) (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 the third nomination for deletion in a little over a year with successful deletions on October 19, 2024 and January 4, 2025. As noted in those discussions, the subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. The article relies on several primary sources plus some media sources. The media appears to be reliable at a glance but the vast majority of these are not independent of the subject (WP:GNG) and are instead involving interviews with Gilbertson himself or directly quoting his blog/social media profiles.

Examples of especially problematic sources carrying significant weight on the article are self-entered data on websites, this and this which largely contain direct quotes from Gilbertson’s blog or Instagram, and this and this which largely regurgitate Gilbertson’s findings that he (et al) had published in one of two academic papers. Most of the rest are interviews done with Gilbertson, which are also not independent of the subject.

Many of the sources on the article could be useful if sufficient independent coverage can be found but a web searches do not seem to offer any sources that don’t stem from specialist interviews, the blog, social media, or the short bio on the Seattle University website. Gilbertson could indeed become notable at some point in the future, but for now this is not the case.

Finally, the article includes a lot of trivia to WP:FLUFF it up, such as that Gilbertson has climbed 144 of 196 country high points (according to Gilbertson), that he holds the fastest known climb for the tallest 100 mountains in various U.S. states (again self reported). DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 17:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Kentucky, and Washington. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 17:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, and Geography. Graywalls (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep As you can see from the sources cited in the article, there is a mountain of independent coverage. I’d agree if you were just referring to churnalism, but plenty of the sources are clearly not that. the interpretation that sources should be excluded from GNG if they are “specialist” or quote the subject in the article is not supported by policy or practice. Many of the sources additionally quote other people, showing that they cannot not just be repeating what gilbertson tells them. The most thorough sources imo are [1][2][3] and I would keep the article even if there was no other coverage.
    Some of the claims in the nomination also show a lack of understanding of the topic—for example, FKTs are independently verified. (t · c) buIdhe 18:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The FKT “verification” process is to simply a review of self reported data as described on their website. Their disclaimer reads “We are unable to definitively verify the accuracy of every FKT submitted.” DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 18:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think that the FKT website supports notability given that it’s a database entry, but their verification process is rigorous and FKTs often generate media coverage and sponsorships. It’s not accurate to describe it as a self report as you claimed. (t · c) buIdhe 18:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was simply responding to your claim that I have a lack of understanding of the source material. If you have another resource that shows more rigorous verification of FKT claims then sure, but based on what’s described on the linked website I am not convinced this is beyond self-reporting. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 18:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt this promotional BLP that does not pass GNG to avoid wasting any more of editors’ time. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: it’s unusual to see a GA here, though GA status is not itself a bar to deletion (we have deleted Featured Articles in the past). Both the nominator and reviewer are experienced editors: pinging It is a wonderful world and buidhe (I had misread the signature on the comments above!). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @UndercoverClassicist: I’m surprised at how quickly this went GA. It was created November 23. It was GA listed November 25. Two days. I’ve never seen it happen so fast in my entire time on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh; I don’t see anything odd there. I’ll usually nominate an article for GA when I feel it’s “finished”, and for a short article like this one I can completely imagine “finishing” it (at least to GA standard) in a day or two. I certainly can’t see that the GA nom was anything other than thorough: it seems well within the standards usually set at GAN. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The quick rise from draft to article to speedy deletion candidate to GA does raise eyebrows. There was a brief discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 36#Need AfC review before GAN can be started where it becomes apparent that, even before the article creator promoted their own draft to article-space, they were planning to immediately nominate it for GA. I have occasionally seen immediate reviews of new GA nominations but it’s rare; more often they languish for months. The biggest thing I’m surprised to see unadressed in the GA review is why the two very recent AfD delete outcomes don’t immediately disqualify it as GA under the stability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to the complexity, when challenged about a source (ExplorersWeb) listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing/Article recommendations, the primary author of the article responded by removing that wording from the page without opening a discussion with that group. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 20:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This question is unrelated to the deletion discussion. I do not think that the source should be listed as unreliable unless there is actual evidence and a real discussion about it. (t · c) buIdhe 20:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that this is unrelated as it was challenged in this AfD and removed as a result. Thank you for opening the discussion at WP:RSN. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 20:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because I disagree that most the sources can be discounted due to them being regurgitations of his blog or academic research. Firstly, academic research being reported on by media contributes to its notability – it means there is secondary interest in his work. Secondly, the sources containing direct quotes from Gilbertson’s blog or Instagram contain large amounts of factual reporting on his work, which makes up more of the content in these articles than quotes from his social media. I would not be opposed to removing the fact about the 144 of 196 country high points, though it could stay as it is attributed to Gilbertson already and covered in an independent source. Some other things I think are misleading about this nomination are:
As noted in those discussions, the subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article” – The article has been entirely rewritten and a bunch of independent sources published after those discussions took place have been added
The FKT profile does not carry “significant weight on the article”. It is used as a primary source in addition to the secondary source directly before it, which also verifies all the information in the sentence
The Times article is never mentioned, even though it seems like the strongest source in the article (though note I am unable to access it to verify that it has no issues).
The record for the 100 mountains has an independent source which directly supports the claim. This means it is notable and is not WP:FLUFF. IAWW (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That’s old news that was available during the first two rounds of AfDs. @Rsjaffe and Star Mississippi:, are you guys able to review old deleted versions? I would like to know if citations now are substantially different since then and became available that would make him notable now but not then. Graywalls (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can check that for yourself just by checking the publication dates on the currently cited sources. (t · c) buIdhe 19:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the references in the last deleted version of this page title:
  1. “North America”. web.mit.edu. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  2. “Billigreisen und geschmierte Polizisten – die Abenteuer der Kletter-Zwillinge”. Tages-Anzeiger (in German). 2022-10-25. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  3. “Country Highpoints. Bracia jako pierwsi chcą zdobyć najwyższe szczyty górskie w 196 krajach | National Geographic”. www.national-geographic.pl (in Polish). Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  4. Southern, Keiran (2022-11-02). “Twin peaks: brothers Matthew and Eric Gilbertson rewrite mountain record books”. www.thetimes.com. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  5. “Eric Gilbertson, PhD”. Seattle University. Retrieved 2025-01-02.
  6. Milne, Keeley (2023-08-09). “Oregon’s Jason Hardrath obliterates Rocky Mountain Grand Slam FKT”. Canadian Running Magazine. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  7. “Beta and Brews: Winter FA of Hard Mox with Eric Gilbertson”. The Mountaineers. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  8. “Zwillinge wollen höchste Punkte in allen Ländern der Welt erreichen”. Süddeutsche.de (in German). 2022-11-09. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  9. Ghosh, Souparno. “Alumni have summitted the highest points of every North American country”. The Tech. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  10. “Billigreisen und geschmierte Polizisten – die Abenteuer der Kletter-Zwillinge”. Tages-Anzeiger (in German). 2022-10-25. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  11. “Wolt-bud besteg verdens farligste bjerg og var tæt på katastrofe: Pludseligt regnede det med tunge sten og iltflasker | fyens.dk”. fyens.dk (in Danish). 2022-10-22. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  12. “The Line: Global Ambition — American Alpine Club”. American Alpine Club. 2024-08-21. Retrieved 2024-09-10.
  13. “فرواع..أعلى قمة سعودية”. arriyadiyah.com (in Arabic). Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  14. “A Tale of Two Peaks – Destination KSA”. 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  15. “Newsday – Twin peaks: Brothers’ mission to climb every national highpoint – BBC Sounds”. www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2024-11-26.
  16. “Mount Rainier is shrinking and now has a new summit”. The Seattle Times. 2024-10-06. Retrieved 2024-11-30.
  17. “Rainier Is Shorter Than We All Thought”. Seattle Met. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
— rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls I don’t have the on wiki bandwidth to assess the sources right now, but I’ve undeleted the history for you and any other interested editors to review and assess. cc @Rsjaffe Star Mississippi 19:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclosure of COI with article subject). The article in its current state is bloated with unencyclopedic information plus unreliable sources like ExplorersWeb. However, in my opinion Gilbertson satisfies GNG, primarily due to his surveying work and not the country highpoints project. His surveys being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals boosts his credibility and notability as an academic. Of course, the article needs a lot of work and doesn’t even have an infobox. Not sure how it was nominated for GA status so quickly. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors should note that KnowledgeIsPower9281 was the article creator of the first two iterations of this article that were deleted, but has not been involved in the current article. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 16:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you’re COI, I think it’s inappropriate to say keep and batting for your buddy. That’s massively COI and biased. Graywalls (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous 2 AfD were based on a reactionary opposition to the fact that the previous versions of the article were written by a COI editor who engaged in significant promotional editing and should not be read as establishing that the subject is not notable. The sources (especially The Times article [source #1] and The Aspen Times article [source #7]) are sufficient to establish notability under WP:BASIC.
The Aspen Times source was published after the last AfD. There is also this interview source [4] that provides a some independent significant coverage at the beginning of the piece (e.g. On October 5, Gilbertson and two colleagues, Elijah Gen­dron and Peter Klein, climbed the 14,299-foot Crestone Peak in the dark, arriving at the saddle between the summits of Cres­tone and an almost-as-tall bump called East Crestone at dawn. What the three-man crew wanted to know was which one of the points was taller. After using sophisticated equipment mounted on both rocky peaks simultaneously, Gilbertson demonstrated with a 99% confidence probability that East Crestone was actu­ally 3.6 inches taller than Crestone. This means that he discov­ered a new 14er in the Sangre de Cristo Mountain Range.) that also contributes to notability. Katzrockso (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Garret Cord Werner (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 WP:NCORP. Cited sources are either promotional/unreliable or briefly discuss this obscure interior design firm. Gheus (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over a number of years these projects have been written up in independent design and property publications as full project features, not just brief mentions. For this type of practice, coverage of built work is often the main way independent sources address the subject. I have added a couple of additional independent sources to the article to reflect this more clearly.
When I created the article I based my judgement on wiki policy that this kind of firm is less likely to receive sustained general coverage and more likely to be known through notable projects, in the same way that law firms may be covered through significant cases or academics through their h index and peer reviewed work. I still think this is the situation here, and I first learned about the company while reading about a historic renovation project that caught my attention. I also think there are a few good articles about the company that provide significant coverage. I have shared my view and I am happy to leave the final decision to other editors.
[5][6][7] Nullius Inverba 2 (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Acceptable for the niche. I’ve evaluated a few sources:

Brosticate (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version