Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ridge (Wolf's Head)

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. ✗plicit 23:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East Ridge (Wolf's Head)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

In compliance with

WP:N, this article does not meet requirements for notability. The subject of this article is not discussed outside of guidebooks or trip reports and has (as best I can tell) never been mentioned in any mainstream news ¡Ayvind! (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Geography, and Wyoming. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see why good guidebooks or climbing books should be considered less worthy than "mainstream news." News outlets are not the only reliable sources. That said I would want to see *significant* mentions in more than one such source, by different authors, to consider a climbing route notable. Not sure yet if this route meets that standard. A secondary note that this seems to be one of a number of very short articles sourced primarily to Fifty Classic Climbs of North America (see East Buttress (Middle Cathedral), Northeast Face (Pingora), and many others at Category:Climbing routes), so whatever happens here may have relevance for them as well. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Relevant material already covered at
WP:GNG passes, and two reliable, independent sources could be enough to substantiate that, even if they are specialist climber press/books, but in this case, even if that were the case, we already have an article on the Wolf's Head that is not very long and the relevant subject matter is already there, so why do we need a separate article on it? FOARP (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, as it is I don't see any reason to keep the climbing route articles split from the articles on the peaks/mountains except in very rare cases (like some Everest routes). —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2022 (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.