Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wallenberg Set

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 keep. Tone 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Wallenberg Set

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Wallenberg Set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Kept at 2007 AfD, but standards were extremely different them. This is a 'skateboarding spot' where the occasional contest or photoshoot has taken place. It has no significant coverage, in-depth of the spot itsle and no long-term significance. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I respectfully disagree. "Wallenberg is one of the oldest, most iconic gaps with a long trick history." - The article needs some work, I will crack into it. Although relatively underreported on, the Wallenberg Set is most certainly notable. --Wil540 art (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. I see enough independent third-party sources to suggest this place has a "legendary" reputation. Plus the article is in halfway-decent shape. --Lockley (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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.