Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nevada

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

Purge page cache

watch

Nevada

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleks Berkolds

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

Berkolds played most of his short career playing for reserve teams and I couldn't find much info about him. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Raskuly (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, Nevada, and Washington. Raskuly (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2025 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 03:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Sepulveda

(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 from reliable, independent sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Nevada. Let'srun (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My WP:BEFORE search doesn't found references to meet general notability guidelines or to demonstrate significant coverage. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet more non-notable footy spam. We need an acronym for that. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2025 (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 merge‎ to Emilio's as a sensible ATD. Kudos to Helpful Raccoon for creating an elegant solution to the issues raised here. Owen× ☎ 12:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Baglioni

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

The article reads more like a promotional biography than an encyclopedic entry. Much of the content is unsourced, or sourced to highly unreliable or self-published material (e.g. personal websites, YouTube uploads from the subject, a dead local blog). There is little evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that would establish notability under WP:BIO. The inclusion of unsourced claims about childhood experiences, family lineage, and personal relationships further contributes to the article’s promotional tone. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Switzerland, England, California, Nevada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a chef of some local renown---his restaurant got a LA Times review back in the 1980s and received additional WP:MILL coverage of the restaurant's life cycle. (1 2)---but there is no significant coverage of the subject to substantiate WP:GNG. -- BriefEdits (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally promo article, no evidence of notability, clearly fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing a lot of coverage in California newspapers in newspapers.com extending from 1968 through 1998; some of which cover television appearances. Additionally google books shows snippets of articles in culinary magazines such as a 1990 article in Epicurean Rendezvous and a 1991 article on him in National Culinary Review. This book published by Wiley (publisher) indicates he was a notable figure in an "Italian renaissance" in cuisine in America of the 20th century. I don't think demonstrating WP:SIGCOV will be difficult.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the Restaurants & Institutions article, the coverage only mentions the subject and is mostly about the restaurant as it's a piece on the landscape of Italian restaurants in the United States. The same could be said about the Epicurean Rendezvous page (a 90s restaurant guide). The WP refs and JSTOR hits are more or less the same---some occasional name drops, some WP:MILL coverage of the restaurant. Therefore, I don't think the coverage as it stands passes WP:SIGCOV. -- BriefEdits (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was written as a BLP, and many issues were fixed by (1) his death in 2021, and (2) editors stubifying this page in 2024. I removed the stale tags to reflect current. Underneath wasn't much left, but potential sources and solutions have been identified. Bearian (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if chefs were treated as creative professionals and covered under WP:CREATIVE, then maybe those references found above would be enough to support for inclusion on notability based on some heritability between the reviews and the subject. - Indefensible (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an annoying situation. His restaurant seems to be notable, but Emilio himself is not independently notable from the restaurant. I am seeing very little coverage about Emilio except in connection to his restaurant, e.g. [1]. The correct outcome would be to merge into a new article about the restaurant, but this article has very little discussion of the restaurant. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emilio's, which I just made. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2025 (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 draftify‎. I see some agreement that sources establish notability for the school's programs, but no agreement on whether this is equivalent to notability for the school itself, or the two are as distinct as a company and its products. If there is, indeed, a notable subject that falls within the coverage of this article--extended or narrowed as needed, I see the call for its deletion to be a procedural overreach. Editors are encouraged to discuss changing the scope or the title of the article to match the notability offered by the sources, and move it back to mainspace once this concern has been addressed. Owen× ☎ 13:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Arts, Careers and Technology

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

Almost totally unreferenced article about a school for which notability is not shown, nor found prior to nomination. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. While the school appears to serve a specific educational purpose, the sources provided are not sufficient to demonstrate significant, in-depth, independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Most of the content is primary, routine, or directory-style, which does not establish lasting encyclopedic notability. Setwardo (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without notoriety, fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG 200.46.55.99 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Geschichte (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As with most high schools, this school has sufficient WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG, see here: News4, This is Reno, KOLO News (1), KOLO News (2), the Nevada Independent, and 2News. Even if they're not in the article notability is based on the availability of qualifying sources per WP:NEXIST. Looks like a failure of WP:BEFORE. (Editorially, this article should be stubified to remove the promotional tone and brochure-like copy, but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources above provide significant coverage of the school itself as an organization. They do cover individual programs and activities but that isn't sufficient for our purposes. We need big picture sources directly about the school as an institution, not just about a single program or department within the school or even just a single event connected to the school (which is what some of the above examples are). We have here local coverage of the school's aviation program and a fire fighting program and a cooking class in WP:ROUTINE news cycle coverage. A cooking class doing community service by making Thanksgiving turkeys is a great human interest piece but it isn't SIGCOV of the school, and a press release on the founding of an aviation program or coverage of large donations isn't either. Because of the limited scope of the stories to individual programs and the local nature of the coverage I don't think they could be considered in-depth coverage of the main topic and would fall under WP:NOTNEWS. The types of sources we need are histories of the school or independent analysis of the work of the school. That's not really what we have here. 4meter4 (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, coverage of a school's programs is coverage of a school -- what is a school if not its educational program? Per WP:NSCHOOL, schools may pass the general notability guideline and are not required to meet WP:NORG. I reviewed and rejected more routine news items that appeared to be based on press releases; these appear to involve original reporting that provides WP:SIGCOV of the school to some degree. (I'm actually fairly impressed as to the depth of reporting compared to what notable schools often get.) Finally, as to your "local nature of the coverage" comment, GNG (unlike WP:NORG with WP:AUD) has no requirement for sources to come from beyond a single local area. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up note: You suggest that [t]he types of sources we need are histories of the school or independent analysis of the work of the school but WP:SIGCOV is defined as coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. The actual guideline provides a lower bar than the one you have created here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't agree with that. We don't write about forests based on coverage of individual trees in the forest. At some point we actually need sources which talk about the forest directly or the result is WP:Original synthesis. We fundamentally can't have an article on a school without showing sources with significant coverage of the school as a whole. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." If we were building an article specifically on the school's aviation program I see SIGCOV here. I don't see SIGCOV of the wider school in these materials.4meter4 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. However, separate from this conversation, insisting on published histories of schools or independent analyses of a school's work would impose a much higher standard than has been in place before, and I'd suggest a Village Pump conversation for that interpretation of SIGCOV rather than introducing it in an individual AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 I don't see the need to take this elsewhere because I don't perceive this as a novel interpretation but a faithful interpretation of WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH policy. To put it simply, we need sources directly about the topic in evidence. If the topic is Harvard University the sources need to be about the university as a whole. If all we had were sources about Harvard's biology and chemistry programs we couldn't build an article about the entire university just based off of those. The same principle applies here. "Directly and in detail about Academy of Arts, Careers and Technology" means just that. There needs to be sources which address the main topic directly not just a small aspect of the main topic.4meter4 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would this meet our notability guidelines if moved to, say, Academy of Arts, Careers and Technology programs or Academy of Arts, Careers and Technology aviation program?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as a WP:ATD, to see if more encompassing sources can be found. BD2412 T 03:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with 4meter4 here. Would news about an actor starring in a film not count towards the actors notability? In the same way, a schools activities are not separate from the school when establishing notability. Should we delete Luigi Mangione's article because all the coverage of him is in relation to him killing Brian Thompson? Of course not. I am more than satisfied with this, and I don't even see the need to rename the page, though if it comes to that I guess it's not the worst compromise in the world. JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2025 (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.