Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Washington

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:

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|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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Washington.

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/Washington/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Washington[edit]

Jeff Johnson (labor leader)[edit]

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

BLP of questionable notability. I encountered this page during New Page Review and after discussion with the author provided some time for additional sourcing. However, after a couple weeks the sources provided do not meet the standard for WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. A quick review:

Source 1, 5, 13, and 19 are oral histories or personal papers/writing by the subject and thus primary sources. Source 5 also includes an unattributed biographical note, but it is published by the Labor Archives of Washington, which cannot be an independent source on the topic of Jeff Johnson, a local labor leader. The union alliance that Johnson led is listed as a major funder of the archives and Johnson was himself a board director of the Labor Archives.
Source 2 is to WP:BALLOTPEDIA, about whose reliability there is no consensus.
Sources 3 and 8 are to a newsletter published by Johnson's organization and thus not independent.
Sources 4, 6, and 7 are to a labor-specific industry publication and thus ineligible for notability per WP:TRADES.
Source 9 and 11 are local news blogs that are mostly reprints/paraphrases of an organizational press release.
Sources 12 and 14-18 are WP:ROUTINE coverage of Johnson in articles that focus on other issues on which he is invited to comment.

In my analysis, that leaves only Source 10 to count as significant coverage, and we'd need to see more for this to pass notability thresholds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Washington. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You previously stated in my discussion with you that the article from the Tacoma News Tribune counts as a reliable secondary source. If that and source 10 count as significant coverage, I believe the page should be allowed to stay up. In addition, I would argue that the other coverage of Johnson in the Seattle Times and Everett Herald constitute significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The Herald and Tribune are real independent news organs (not just blogs) from Tacoma and Everett, Washington, which are the 3rd and 7th largest cities in the state, respectively. Labor history is a traditionally underrepresented field of history, and coverage of leading figures like Johnson on Wikipedia helps promote research. Deleting this article would be contradictory to Wikipedia's efforts to increase diversity in biographies. Mathieulalie (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, I realized the Tacoma News Tribune piece is mostly a reprint of a press release, which makes it a primary source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a JSTOR source, hopefully that will prove notability. Mathieulalie (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR itself is not a source, it's just an index (like Google News). In the underlying source by Myers (see here), Johnson is briefly quoted/referenced on two pages of a nearly 300-page book. That's a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, not significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2 is fine for now - as you say, @Dclemens1971 there is no consensus about Ballotpedia, so, unless the source is deprecated in a future discussion, it is perfectly usable.

Sources 4, 6, and 7 are marginally useful, but not unusable. I don't see a reason to dismiss them per WP:TRADES, unless it can be established that the sources are directly connected to Johnson, and therefore not independent.

Sources 12 and 14-18, as you mention, make only cursory mentions of Johnson - but WP:ROUTINE, per my reading, says that routine events are not in and of themselves notable - it does not say that articles covering routine events are completely unusable for any purpose. Here, they are not being used to establish the notability of a routine event, they're being used to establish the notability of Johnson, by showing that he has been invited to make published comments on a variety of issues.

Plus, there's source 10.

Overall, while Jeff Johnson is obviously not a major, epoch-shaping world-historic figure, I see more than enough published material to establish that he is a notable figure in the world of modern labor organizing in the USA. For someone who is studying that topic, this article may be interesting and useful. I see no compelling reason to delete the article, so let's keep it and let interested editors continue to improve it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philomathes2357: WP:ROUTINE is specific to WP:NEVENTS. Biographies go off of WP:BASIC and the "trivial coverage" mention there. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was my general impression, thanks for the clarification. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Philomathes2357. There is enough evidence of notability in the published sources.--User:Namiba 13:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see just enough sources to pass GNG. This is especially true if the biographical note and the content description to the Jeff Johnson papers are independent. --Enos733 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're not, though -- they're published by the Labor Archives of Washington, on whose board Johnson serves and which is funded by Johnson's organization. See here: https://labor.washington.edu/labor-archives#about Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Labor Archives of Washington is part of the University of Washington Libraries Special Collections, and the biography to his finding aid was written by a UW Special Collections staff member, funded by the Washington state budget. Johnson's papers were processed independently of his input. Finding aids are academic research materials, not promotional materials. The article was not written to promote Johnson's political career (even if it were, it would have little effect since he is retired) but as a public service to promote knowledge about the state labor council's activities, specifically its role in farmworker organizing and the 15Now campaign. Furthermore, neither the Labor Archives nor Johnson receives any money from people viewing his papers (or any other collections). Mathieulalie (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnson appears to serve on a board of an entity that supports the Labor Archive, not the archive itself. And in this particular context, it probably shouldn't be a surprise that the former president of a local labor union would be asked to join the board of a non-profit focused on a labor archive. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Labor Archives also isn't a nonprofit or a business, it is part of the University of Washington Libraries. Mathieulalie (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, with that second sentence above I was meaning to refer to the Friends of the Labor Archives organization. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A biography about someone who's on the board of an organization that exists to give money to an entity and whose own organization is a donor to the entity cannot be truly independent if written by staff of an entity. See WP:COISOURCE, "less direct interests can be harder to see and more subjective to establish." Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep or redirect to Washington State Labor Council - there is smoke here. The problem is that we can't track down where the fire is. If you'll allow me to be morbid for a moment, I strongly suspect Johnson will immediately and unquestionably meet our notability guidelines the moment he dies and has obituaries written about him in several Washington newspapers. Fortunately for Johnson, he is still alive. But for our purposes and at the present time, the sourcing is thin (as the OP notes). What's available often briefly quotes Johnson by virtue of his position as the head of the union, and does not dive into specifics about the person themselves. I'd be fine with either keeping this article or merging its content into the organization that he ran. To me, the following sources count towards notability and have swayed me:

Ballotpedia with its bio + "In 2015, Ballotpedia identified Jeff Johnson (Washington) as a top influencer by state."
The biography written by archivists in charge of his papers should also count, as we have no reason to assume that the decision that Johnson's papers were important enough to archive was swayed by outside factors.

Sources I don't think count toward notability include:

I don't believe nwLaborPress/Northwest Labor Press can count towards notability because it's a newspaper that specifically focuses on unions in Oregon and Washington. To me, it's the definition of a trade publication within this topic area, and our guidelines say that "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability."
The Tacoma News Tribune source is a press release with a little added text. For our purposes, it's a republished WP:PRSOURCE.
The Seattle Times's first reference has Johnson mentioned twice for an email that he wrote to politicians. Subsequent references appear to also briefly quote him, although I've run out of free articles and haven't been able to view all of them. If that holds true, they don't meet the standard at WP:BASIC: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability". An example of trivial given in footnote 7 there is "a mention in passing ('John Smith at Big Company said...' [...] ) that does not discuss the subject in detail."
The Olympian is close as there is some context given. However, it's thinly written without much depth.
HeraldNet articles 1, 2, and 3 don't meet WP:BASIC. Johnson is briefly quoted in all of them.
Patch is not reliable per WP:USERGENERATED. (See the disclaimer at the top: "This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.") Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the sources accepted as reliable, multiple mentions elsewhere add to notability. In addition to sources accessible on the internet, as a union leader it is highly probable that the subject has also been covered in as yet undigitized print media.--Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just enough evidence of notability and does no harm. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 zebra escape[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Short-lived event that has, even a few weeks later, had no discernable lasting impact. Per WP:N(E), the depth and duration of non-local coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Sounder Bruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington. Sounder Bruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero impact on anything, probable WP:SUSTAINED / WP:LASTING failure. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

PersusjCP (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quintessential WP:NOTNEWS of a local event with no actual significance. Escapes of exotic animals are not particularly rare, even if their unusualness attracts some public attention. Reywas92^Talk 13:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per previously raised points by above editors. Gottagotospace (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres, Washington[edit]

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

A belated prod undeletion: Ceres is a rail station with a general store, the post office was cabinet in the general store [1]. It's also a hill nearby. The area is known as Ceres Hill, so likely needs a move if not deleted.

Original reasoning:Not a notable location. All of the sources mentioned are either trivial mentions or are insufficient for notability (GNIS; Jim Forte). Only reference 6 approaches reliability, and it plainly states that Ceres was just a road-rail crossing with a general store, and the post office was a "pigeon cabinet" in the corner of the store. Satellite images reveal the store and railroad are both gone now, with a single farmhouse nearby. Non-notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. (proposed by WeirdNAnnoyed) James.folsom (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as the PRODder) for reasons given above. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Non-notable community. TH1980 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite/reclassify as a former community. A long read is available at the Talk:Ceres, Washington page with details in early history of Ceres. I agree that such a community no longer exists, but it did from the late 1890s and with some strength into the late 1930s. Small, rural communities are rarely given due historical attention, but thanks to local reporting, even if in snippets, we can see the Ceres community that once existed. If via consensus we keep the article, I volunteer to rewrite and expand the page.Shortiefourten (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources compiled by Shortiefourten on the article talk page shows this is a recognized populated place sufficient to be kept. The Origin of Washington Geographic Names sources also calls it a "town", though I understand that to be in the American way that rural areas gathered community identities.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forest, Washington[edit]

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

Reference 2 on the article itself is Meany's place names, and he says that Forest was a post office briefly located at Newaukum prairie. Please remember that post offices back then did not always use the same name as the place where they were, in alot a cases that place didn't exist.The fourth reference (jtenton) is a semi unreliable source that also says it was post office, and the sources used to make that claim are basically also the story of a post office, a school district, and election district named forest. It was also earlier a grange district. As you might imagine such things appear in newspapers but you want find any of those news papers that ever say it was a town. The remaining sources are of no use, and I haven't found anything further than those that actually give any substance on it. James.folsom (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forgot this part, Washington State place names [2] couldn't be bothered to mention it and it was published in the '70s.James.folsom (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the explanations at the article's talk page, Talk:Forest, Washington. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please see the Talk:Forest, Washington for my sourcing research. Forest, though never large, has existed as a community in some form or fashion since the late 1890s. Instead of deletion, we simply expand the article, fleshing out the details. I volunteer to do so. Shortiefourten (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Live[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP on its own, but I believe this could be merged into Amazon Inc. as a subsidiary. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Amazon Inc.: per nom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Websites, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' it's better to merge to Amazon Prime. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FightBrightTigh: Keeping and merging are mutually exclusive outcomes. Which one are you suggesting is best? jlwoodwa (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Only 2 sources 1 is primary, so not worth it's own page. It's better for this page to be merged into Amazon Inc. EternalNub (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cora, Washington[edit]

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

This was a declined PROD. The third source (forte) is just a list of post offices, and doesn't provide proof of population center since many post offices were in rural areas, and had names that weren't always the same as the place. GNIS (source 1) is unreliable for classification of towns. The second source provides 3 refs for this "town" [3] [4] [5]. Those sources don't mention a town of Cora, but a post office called Cora. Further research shows that the Cora post office serviced the Upper Big Bottom area of Lewis county [6](see pg 253). A newspaper article from 2002 further stated that it was a post office (look down toward the bottom of the first column) [7] James.folsom (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of valid sources describing this as a community Claire 26 (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; sources just show this was a rural post office, and there is nothing at the site now except a "Cora Bridge". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with rewrite/reclassify see the Talk:Cora, Washington page for sourcing on Cora that I was able to find (I'd paste it here but it's fairly long); to me this was a community though not large and seems to have existed in strength from the 1890s to maybe into the Great Depression. Founders were family that began Claquato, Washington, so there's some connection there. Obvious that no formal community exists now so my proposal is to rewrite/reclassify the page (rather than deletion) claiming it to be an extinct community/ghost town.Shortiefourten (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Looking at google maps, there is still quite a few houses located at the location, so it would be considered an "unincorporated community", it is also part of the "Mary’s Corner to Upper Naches Valley" Tour.^[1] There is also a bridge a the location named Cora Bridge. (link to view bridge: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cora+Bridge/@46.5348379,-121.7968308,748m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x5496da37cca18657:0xbecd0da45ab1a054!8m2!3d46.5348342!4d-121.7942559!16s%2Fg%2F1tx4p20y?entry=ttu) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Revisiting Washington — Cora". revisitwa.org. Retrieved 2024-05-16.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Google map speaks for itself - it's populated, and there are least two businesses there. And the timeline in the article is well sourced. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
with unreliable crap. James.folsom (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiftboard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability Amigao (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Internet, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A couple of reliable sources on the article, seems to meet WP:NORG. A couple of hits in the news section of Google too. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the references pass the WP:SIRS test? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It looks notable, but the reliable sources are questionable, and there may not be enough of them. Hookiq (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any of the sources passing WP:SIRS. UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find myself concurring with UtherSRG regarding the quality of sourcing and the lack of them meeting WP:SIRS. Taking away the clearly evident primary sources, which alone equate to a third, many of the rest are news posts written or sponsored by the company themselves (e.g. this, this, this and this are clearly not entirely independently written/published). The others suffer in a similar way, or are interviews with the new CEO, with a passing mention on the company which is not the focus of the article. There also seem to be a minimal amount of hits on google news, an indicator this may not be as notable as the article would suggest. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Deletion Review[edit]

[:0-1] "Revisiting Washington — Cora". revisitwa.org. Retrieved 2024-05-16.

[1]