This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Alaska. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Alaska|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Alaska. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Alaska/archive

Kat Milligan-McClellan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Assistant professor (microbiology) with an h-factor of 10 (GScholar), 930 total citations and no awards. She has made a good start, but she is 5-10 years from reaching any of the criteria for academics. WP:TOOSOON by a long way. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think she is ok. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:Prof; not enough for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Biology, Alaska, Connecticut, Oregon, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear case of WP:TOO SOON, she fails WP:Prof. --hroest 13:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Off to a good start, and on track to meet WP:PROF, but I think not quite there yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Grouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of significant coverage in article or a BEFORE search - the sources in the article are trivial mentions and Google Earth links. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alaska. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move. It's a small little lake, does pass WP:GEOFEAT especially once you realise it's mis-titled: "Grouse Lake." SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer: I assume you mean WP:NATFEAT, as GEOFEAT is for artificial features. NATFEAT is a not a presumption of notability and still requires coverage that meets WP:GNG. What sources do you see that meet that standard? Those currently in the article are Google Earth imagery (sources 1, 4, 5, 6), two directory listings (2, 3), three sentences in a fishing guide (7), and one that does not mention the article subject at all (8). None of those qualify as significant coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I did mean WP:GEONATURAL, and no, NATFEAT does NOT require GNG. The test is The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. A quick search of "Grouse Lake" shows that is the case. SportingFlyer T·C 09:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — So this is attempting to be another discussion based solely on the mere presence or absence of certain sources? Are you assuming good faith towards the offline source, which looks pretty solid to me? As the revision history shows this to be a port from it.wiki, there's already the presumption of a lack of good faith towards an article creator who may not be entirely proficient in English. Perhaps more importantly, is AFC going to be called on the carpet for their lack of due diligence prior to moving this into article space? (These questions and many others will be answered on the next episode of Soap!) RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]