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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Axie Oh

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

Fails WP:GNG and relies on her website for most of the info. I could not find independent sources that are reliable to source the page. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nevada. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Easy pass of WP:NAUTHOR as the author of multiple notable books. Most of her books have been the subject of multiple reviews in reliable sources. pburka (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This was nominated for deletion just over 30 minutes after its creation. Maybe it should have been worked on a bit more in draftspace, but the nominator clearly did not give the creator time to expand the article and demonstrate GNG. The creator has since added good references covering Oh from The New York Times and NBC News among others. From a cursory search myself, she meets WP:AUTHOR with multiple books reviewed by publications including Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. MidnightMayhem (talk) 02:12, 26 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 delete‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bristlecone Holdings

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

Not notable and has been tagged with multiple problems since 2017, which havent been resolved. Metallurgist (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. Metallurgist (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nevada. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are technically three references, but at least one indicates that they are "local". Bearian (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if there was notability, after all these years it should now be apparent, and I fear it never will be. Specifically: fails WP:SIRS, the multiple aspect. ChrysGalley (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like pretty much a promotional article.Greatder (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
very good point Metallurgist (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing improved or came out, they just went out of business and disappeared. tedder (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like WP:PROMO to me. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:51, 30 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 keep‎. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angels–Athletics rivalry

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

The subject of this article does not meet the guidelines for notability. Fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Either redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Los Angeles Angels vs. Athletics where this is mentioned at target as an WP:ATD or just Delete altogether if it fails the criteria for notability to be mentioned at all. I am thinking just Delete. Every team is going to be a rival with another team in someway, but this relies heavily on primary sources, and the most reliable source (Which appears to be primary as a local Los Angeles newspaper saying becoming a rivalry prove it does not seem like a rivalry. There is one from ESPN that makes a Redirect viable, but it does not meet the merit for a stand alone article. But actually, as I speak and the more I think about it, I think it would be good to Redirect per WP:BLAR, WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, United States of America, California, and Nevada. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this all glitched out??? Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not entirely sure how Twinkle fell apart on this one either (did it get thrown off by {{TQ}}? Was there stray syntax somewhere, given the left-hanging |pg=Angels–Athletics rivalry|cat=G}}?), but I've gone ahead and reapplied {{subst:afd2}} so it should be normal/OK now. (No opinion at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Metallurgist (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am troubled by the WP:RECENTism in many of these rivalry AfDs. As in-state competitors within the same division for more than 5 decades, representing areas of the state that have their own rivalry, it would make sense that these two teams would have a notable rivalry. And I am finding several references to a rivalry. Just from the first few pages of a newspapers.com search covering the the first 25 years of the Athletics' presence in California (and there were more pages beyond these): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MLB baseball rivalries page. As-is, this article is primarily covering topics other than an established rivalry. The number of seasons in which both teams were competitive are slim. Newspapers cook up coverage about rivalries to get people reading on the regular, but no sources I have seen discuss the rivalry in depth. In some sense the talk of rivalries is more like a disjointed series of events: newspapers will talk about it when both teams have a chance at winning the division but otherwise, silence. Compare that to Dodgers/Yankees, Red Sox/Yankees, Dodgers/Giants, Lakers/Celtics where people will write about the subject in detail even when the rivalries aren't competitive. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current state of the article is not the crtierion for notability. This is certainly not a rivalry on the level of Red Sox/Yankees or Dodgers/Giants, but that level of rivalry is not required either - we have plenty of articles on rivalries that are not at the Red Sox/Yankees or Dodgers/Giants level. Newspapers do soetimes cook up coverage about rivalries, but if I look up some random pair of teams, I don't find this much coverage. For example, I tried Mariners-Orioles, and the only coverage in newspapers.com calling this a rivalry was a single article in the Kitsap Sun from 1997 saying that the teams are "talking rivalry in the making" due to a close race for a wild card spot the prior year. But clearly a rivalry between these two teams was never made. Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, but also could we stop with the WP:NRIVALRY thing? It's one sentence deep and should not qualify the GNG standards of most rivalry pages. Conyo14 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources found by Rlendog seem to indicate WP:NRIVALRY is met. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references added by Rlendog, which establish notability. Recent non-competitiveness is not a factor in establishing notability to the WP:GNG standard, as notability is not temporary. Frank Anchor 14:10, 2 October 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.