Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Gateway

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Gateway (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)

No refs on the page for many years. I see various governmental documents but not enough independent secondary sources to show that could be added to the page to show how it meets the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. JMWt (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per JMWt points- no references used at all, and doesn't have the potential sources to be deemed notable. Editing84 (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2024 (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.