Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Kentucky

Shortcuts

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

Purge page cache

watch

Kentucky

St. Henry District High School

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

Vintage article from when schools had a free pass. This is a non notable school. Fails WP:NORG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Kentucky. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon County Schools

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral return to Draft, so we are at AfD. Schools and school districts are no longer inherently notable. Fails WP:NORG as presented here. Suggesting Draftify pending further work. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Kentucky. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Skinner (American football)

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The sources listed in the article do not provide WP:SIGCOV. I did find another source from the Chillicothe Gazette not listed in the article. However, even with that inclusion, I do not believe it would pass. It possibly has WP:OR, as well. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are several WP:SIGCOV about him in the Chillicothe Gazette, [1][2][3][4](P1/P2). He would however need SIGCOV from at least one other publication to pass WP:GNG. He was the starting QB for Marshall so there might be some coverage in a publication that covers the school if someone knows where to look. Alvaldi (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the Herald-Dispatch, presumably, which will certainly have print coverage of Skinner from 2005 and 2006, but the earliest mentions online seem to be from 2008. I didn't remember Skinner, but since we know that his career was covered by the Herald-Dispatch (and likely other news sources no longer available over the internet), then he seems to pass the general notability guideline. I note that the question is whether the sources exist, not whether they are available over the internet, or cited in the article. And anyone who started as quarterback in any Marshall games will be discussed, not merely mentioned, in the Herald-Dispatch. So this would be a keep. P Aculeius (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As P Aculeius pointed out, the Herald-Dispatch isn't on newspapers.com. However, I was able to find the paper's archives and it looks like Skinner has plenty of coverage. So this passes GNG when combined with Alvaldi's sources above. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gilbertson (climber)

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. Much of notability stems from that one event about Mt. Rainier height matter and there's not been much coverage beyond the immediate time periods following the matter, failing WP:20YT and since further coverage on this hasn't really developed, it's WP:TOOSOON. For other things, it's not quite at GNG meeting level.

The article was successfully deleted with unanimous consensus only two months ago. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC) And due to that, with salt please. Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this through the academics and educators deletion sorting list but as an assistant teaching professor at Seattle University [5] with only one well-cited publication [6] he definitely does not pass WP:PROF. Any notability is going to have to rest on his mountaineering and mountain metrology efforts. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given my conflict of interest, I won't weigh in on the matter. I'll instead ping other users who were involved in the AfC process, including @DJ Cane, @Cabrils, and @Theroadislong. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I saw the AfC Draft was accepted into the mainspace, I got a little too excited and treated editing this article like any other article on Wikipedia. With that said, given the COI, I knew not to do any content-related edits unless proposed through the talk page, so I did quick edits that I believed to be permissible per COI uncontroversial edits, including adding categories and a grammatical fix. The impulsive edit was the removal of the multiple issues template which I acknowledge was a controversial/disruptive edit given my COI and inherent bias. I apologize for that edit and will not make the same mistake in the future, in making impulsive/disruptive edits that aren't clearly permitted in the COI uncontroversial edits section. If you need more information about my COI, please see the article talk page. Cheers! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification would be appreciated on the bizarre coincidence (noted here [7]) whereby KnowledgeIsPower and an account calling itself 'Eric Gilbertson' both began posting on the Mount Rainier talk page promoting the same pro-Gilbertson agenda within days of each other.

WP:SOCKPUPPETRY or WP:MEATPUPPETRY is clearly indicated, especially as the Gilbertson account appears to have been created solely to make those posts.

Your disclosure on COI clearly does not adequately cover the links between yourself and Gilbertson. Axad12 (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Axad12: as they were involved in the previous AfD. Graywalls (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. no pass of WP:Prof and nobility from WP:GNG not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: This article was accepted through the AfC process. Beyond the BLP1E that the nominator mentioned, did you consider the sources such as Nat Geo Poland, The Times of London, Süddeutsche Journal, Tages-Anzeiger Journal, American Alpine Club. If he didn't pass WP:GNG, the article wouldn't have gotten through AfC. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I keep seeing "this article was accepted through the AfC process" used as a reason for keeping an article. It is not a reason. All it means is that some reviewer thought this article might survive a deletion discussion. But now we get to find out if they were correct. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry, I was that reviewer and you are correct, I thought only that it might survive a deletion discussion, I could be wrong, I have no strong opinion either way. Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: After thinking it over a little, if the general consensus comes to the conclusion Gilbertson isn't notable, how about a merge/redirect into Highpointing? Just like Ginge Fullen was the first individual to reach the highest points of each European country, Gilbertson was the first to reach the highest point in each Stan and North American country and is therefore important to the sport of highpointing (and in my opinion has the enough media coverage to warrant a mention there). I'm not saying merge this whole article into highpointing, just the bits important to the sport.

In my opinion, however, if Ginge Fullen can get a Wikipedia article, I think Gilbertson should also. This AfD should be viewed from the lens of Gilbertson's climbing/highpointing/surveying media coverage, since from the academic perspective I agree he's non-notable. Obviously my COI gives me a bias in favor of Gilbertson, but figured I'd throw this idea out there. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a suggestion. Why don't you stop using Wikipedia as a platform to promote Gilbertson? This edit [8] which you made recently, removing multiple tags from the Gilbertson article, was a disgrace for a user with almost 3,000 edits - especially one who has previously been brought to COIN [9] and had been pointed to WP:COI. The edit is absolutely typical of the work of bad faith conflicted users such as yourself (as was the timing of the edit).

I also suggest that you stop trying to interfere with this AfD and instead allow non-conflicted users to decide what should happen to this article.

If you have a problem with the article for Ginge Fullen (or any other article) then nominate it to AfD as well. If one article can be located which doesn't comply with GNG then that isn't an argument for the further creation of non-notable articles. Instead it is an argument for the article which doesn't comply with GNG to be deleted. Axad12 (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. The subject clearly does not satisfy WP:GNG. The article is the creation of a user who seems intent on promoting Gilbertson and thus salting seems the only way to prevent further re-creation. Axad12 (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I participated in the original AfD as well as the AfC. Since I was directly pinged here, I figured I ought to say something. I'm on the fence about whether or not Gilbertson is notable at this time and will refrain from voting. That said, I feel the creator of the article has been making positive steps to correct problematic editing and feel that there is some dogpiling going on here that is counter productive. If kept, this article needs further trimming to decrease the dominance of primary sources and sources derived from primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Cane (talk • contribs)

In what sense is pointing out the issues with the user's editing counter productive? Earlier today the user has voluntarily agreed to stop editing around the subject of Gilbertson, which is clearly a positive outcome all round. If you prefer to allow COI editing, meatpuppetry, etc., to continue without comment (including at COIN, where you made a very similar comment) then I'm afraid I cannot agree. You only have to look at the resolution to the discussions at the user's talk page and my own talk page to see the entirely positive and amicable outcome here. Axad12 (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DJ Cane:, Have you not seen them making another attempt at inserting borderline run of the mill person Eric Gilbertson into very high view count, indisputably highly important and notable articles such as the country of Uzbekistan and Mt. Rainier ? Also, the draft they submitted just a few weeks ago was full of unacceptable WP:QS primary sources and self published material which they should've known better by now to not use as source. This hints towards just an attempt to re-submit as close to the original version as possible. Graywalls (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I said I am moving on from this, just wanted to clarify the above.

For the record, I will state my reasoning for adding Gilbertson-related content to the articles you mentioned was so that his article wasn't an orphan. I (wrongly) figured it would be permissible to attribute the survey to him if his article was in the mainspace. In drafting the current article I did my best to reduce fluff, but I recognize that the natural bias arising from my COI reduces my standard of editing in both instances.

As I stated to @Axad12, I will no longer edit anything Gilbertson-related nor insert any Gilbertson-related content anywhere else in the encyclopedia. However, per @Graywalls suggestion here, I may submit one COI edit request to the highpointing article pertaining to a mention of Gilbertson. If it is declined by a neutral editor, then I won't do repeat COI edit requests.

Axad12, I know you suggested to me here that I don't do any COI edit requests (and I initially agreed), but I feel one COI edit request is a reasonable, non-disruptive way to get a neutral editor to decide if Gilbertson-related content belongs on a non-BLP article. Cheers! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have been involved with the draft page and multiple discussions with the author on my Talk page. I am of the view that the page is WP:TOOSOON. The serious COI is concerning. Cabrils (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion