Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tims Mountain

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. Missvain (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tims Mountain

[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)

Short hill that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng. Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails
WP:GEOLAND and GNG. Side note, according to this source Tims Mountain is "part of Grassy Mountain", which according to Peakbagger only has 68m of prominence, short of the 100m cutoff for List of mountain peaks of Missouri, so the article can't even be redirected there. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2021 (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.