Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sons of Utah Pioneers historic monuments

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The result was nomination withdrawn in favour of a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sons of Utah Pioneers historic monuments

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

List of unclear utility, whose title does not actually correspond to its contents: the title claims that it's a list of monuments, but what's actually in the list is not the names of monuments but simply a tally of the number of monuments in each state that has some. And the only source provided here is the organization's own self-published website about itself, which doesn't constitute strong evidence that this system is notable enough for us to need this list at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to List of Sons and Daughters of Utah Pioneers historic monuments, which is where the page creator decided to keep working on this article. Or, @Bearcat: may instead want to bundle that page into this nomination, as the same argument may apply. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't know about that article — I came across this one because it was misfiled in an overly general category that it didn't really belong in, but that other one wasn't filed alongside it. Since that page actually has at least some names of monuments in it, the potential deletion rationale in that case isn't entirely the same as it is here — it's still parked on the same primary source rather than citing reliable source coverage, but since part of the rationale for deleting this one is vitiated by that page it would need to be renominated for a new discussion rather than simply being bundled here. So I'm going to withdraw this and redirect it to there, without prejudice against a renomination of the target page if somebody else feels more strongly about that than I do. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.