Talk:Glamis, California

This page was proposed for deletion by WeirdNAnnoyed (talk · contribs) on 13 January 2024.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

recent deletion proposal

While I see that you are trying to clean up entries for genuinely non-notable places (I've looked over the list of proposed deletions made today), Glamis is in an entirely different league from the others. By standards of notability, Glamis is easily one of the most notable places in the entire region. It may not have permanent residents, but any given weekend of the year there are anywhere from several hundred to several thousand people staying there. There are easily several million people who know where Glamis is, and over a million people visit it each year, often making many repeat visits. The Glamis Beach Store, by itself, has over 2500 FaceBook followers, which is a lot for a single store in a single location. Here's a very recent news item, if you want a source: [1] Dyanega (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting in the effort to find sources (unlike many who contest PROD's). I hadn't seen that article. If you feel like expanding the article a bit, and adding that source plus any others you know of, I would not be opposed. I'm not committed to deleting the article, I just think that as it stands it needs a lot more, and I didn't find anything more in my good-faith (but not exhaustive) BEFORE check. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]