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 due to lack of independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Storm (Coast Redwood)[edit]

Hail Storm (Coast Redwood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails the general notability criterion. Both https://famousredwoods.com and https://mdvaden.com are self-published sites by people who are not published experts. See Talk:Grogan's Fault for a similar topic that was determined to be non-notable by consensus. — hike395 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does not fail the the general notability criterion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jqmhelios11 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MD Vaden is a certified arborist, the credentials can be viewed on his site, and example of a self-published site meeting Wikipedia's exceptional critera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jqmhelios11 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC) The deletion request above violates WP:PROD by not trying to find an alternative, suggesting the poster wants to see the information gone from the site and rejects 2 reputable sources as noteworthy. Furthermore, the poster violates WP:DNB. The General Notability Criterion states that at least 1 of the criteria must be met outlined on its page. As this is at least the most in detail covering of a largely secret tree on the internet, it meets the guidelines[reply]

• Comment mdvaden.com site is a promotional personal site for mdvaden and there is no indication he is considered an expert on Redwood trees. Therefore it is not a WP:reliable source. famousredwoods.com is privately registered and there does not appear to be an about page or similar to identify who it is written by. Additionally, the website is only valid with an insecure http url and I therefore conclude that it is not a reliable source either. We need to find WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources and neither of those sources meets the latter requirement. noq (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Noq: I don't believe that "the site can only be accessed through http" has any bearing on whether it is a reliable source. it does however seem to be a self-published source with no information on editorial control, so it probably isn't reliable. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• not on its own no, but part of an overall impression of amateurish setup. noq (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  1. We discussed whether Vaden passes the expert bar at Talk:Grogan's Fault. Being a certified arborist is not the same as "being established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" (quoting from WP:RSSELF). Vaden has not published his work in independent publications, and therefore is not considered an expert by Wikipedia.
  2. WP:PROD is a process for uncontroversial deletions. It is not required. I thought this might be a controversial deletion, so decided to bring this up at WP:AFD for discussion, rather than attempting a unilateral deletion.
  3. I don't believe that I have violated any behavioral guidelines of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if Jqmhelios11 feels bitten. I believe that I've been respectful in my limited dealings with them.
  4. This article truly does not currently appear to pass WP:GNG. GNG says that an article should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
     • The article is currently only supported by mdvaden.com and famousredwoods.com. Both of those sources were previously determined to be unreliable (by consensus).
     • I checked: I cannot find any other sources than mdvaden.com and famousredwoods.com for Hail Storm. Maybe Jqmhelios11 can find something?
     • I'm not sure what Jqmhelios11 means that WP:GNG requires only 1 criteria: I quoted it above.

— hike395 (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comment I agree with noq and hike395 that the sources currently in the article are not reliable and so do not speak to notability. This page was passed through AfC, where it was tagged "sources exist". When I mentioned this AfD to the AfC reviewer Jeromeenriquez, they responded by removing the "sources exist" tag. I'm not entirely sure what that means. I personally was not able to find any other sources (but I don't really know the best way to search for something like this, I was just seeing what my search engine spat out). --JBL (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, I went through the Google searches described in WP:Before, and came up empty-handed. — hike395 (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I did search for the resouces and it was linking to some material but when i check it now there is nothing. Please, i agree with my mistake. it shoukld be nominated for speedy deletion. Thanks Jeromeenriquez (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for clarifying! In that case, I have updated my !vote to "delete". --JBL (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nomination, no independent sources exist that support the notability, and per the prior discussions at Talk:Grogan's Fault.--Kevmin § 17:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nominator and the delete votes above all make very strong arguments as to why we shouldn't trust the sources in this article. Topic therefore fails GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 8 January 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.