Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Tennessee

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Tennessee. 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. Edit this page 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|Tennessee|~~~~}} 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 Tennessee. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Tennessee

Fred Armstrong

Fred Armstrong (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)

Contrary to the lead, Armstrong doesn't appear to have been a professional. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarksville Christian School

Clarksville Christian School (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)

Not seeing a WP:GNG pass for this private school in Tennessee. Sources are:

I didn't find any other GNG-qualifying sources in my WP:BEFORE search. The page creator unilaterally removed maintenance tags for notability, promotional language and third-party sourcing without coming close to addressing the problems, so rather than edit-war over a tag, I am going to AfD as the next step. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Tennessee. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I acknowledge that many of the currently cited sources are affiliated with the school or its denomination, there are also independent, reliable local media sources covering Clarksville Christian School that demonstrate its notability. For example, Clarksville Now and The Leaf-Chronicle have reported on CCS’s accreditation milestones, scholarship achievements, and athletics, providing substantive coverage beyond routine directory listings or press releases. Additionally, local news outlets have covered CCS events and student accomplishments in a way that goes beyond trivial mention.
    I am actively working to incorporate these independent third-party sources into the article to strengthen its verifiability and comply with WP:GNG. I respectfully request additional time to improve the article with these reliable sources before any deletion actions are taken. GatewayPolitics (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you could have taken these concerns to my talk page before taking this step. GatewayPolitics (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (You could also have taken your perspective to a talk page before unilaterally removing the maintenance tags on a page you created. Your removal of them is what prompted me to do a WP:BEFORE search that turned up no qualifying sources.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those articles I saw in my BEFORE search; they all appear to be based on or just reprints of press releases from the school. I have not seen anything that constitutes WP:SIGCOV in an independent, reliable, and secondary source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear what you’re saying about the sources, and I understand the importance of meeting WP:SIGCOV. That said, I think tagging or taking further steps without any prior discussion — especially when some effort was clearly made to include sources — feels a bit premature. A quick note on the talk page could’ve opened the door for collaboration rather than escalation. I’m still open to improving the sourcing if better material exists, but I think we should be careful not to rush into cleanup actions without first giving editors a chance to respond. GatewayPolitics (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion discussions run 7 days so you have plenty of time. If you supply sources that pass the test of GNG, the page will be kept. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dclemens1971 I have cleaned it up. Any other things that need to be changed? GatewayPolitics (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see any sources that support notability. The Clarksville Now piece appears to be based on a pair of press releases from the school ([16], [17]) and the Leaf-Chronicle link is to a "subscribe" page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I changed it a bit more and I believe that the article is good and is notable enough. I will have to see other opinions, and will respect the outcome. GatewayPolitics (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say the Leaf-Chronicle article is independent WP:SIGCOV of the school but the Austin Peay State University piece isn't; it's focused on its alumnus Hassell and trivially mentions the school. That's one source toward GNG; remember, we need multiple GNG-qualifying sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - the page creator has requested additional time to source the article, so it can be done in draft space and then submitted to Articles for Creation when it is ready. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - I support allowing the editor time and space to get this article in shape. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Delete. This article is not sourced appropriately and is written in a promotional tone, but I can see the potential for keeping it in draft space to let the author have more time to build out sources. I found a couple of regional newspaper articles that *might* be enough, but it's a long shot and the author will need to do a lot of work to get it an appropriate level of sourcing to support notability. nf utvol (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James P Mahon

James P Mahon (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)

Refbombed promotion for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Many sources but most are by him instead of about him. A little bit of local interest puff but nothing significant. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have decided not to make a specific recommendation here. Yet. As, frankly, I wonder if I can leave aside the years of WP:COI and WP:REFBOMB concerns that I've struggled with on this title. And, perhaps, any !vote contribution from me may not be fully objective. However, I have long wondered whether WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC are met here. As, IMO, there is limited evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The sources (in the article and seemingly those that are available) are almost all either written by the subject (some about himself and others just things he has written generally), or by entities associated with the subject (university bio profiles, Huffington Post profile, news employer bio, etc), or are just trivial passing mentions. The only three sources, of which the subject is a primary topic and which are could be considered somewhat independent, are the three pieces in the local Clare Champion newspaper (from 2013, 2021 & 2022). And, personally, I'd question whether these are fully independent. Or whether these types of "local boy graduates" stories materially contribute to notability. Any more than this "former co-worker wrote autobiography" piece is strictly independent. Anyway. If I was confident that years of COI/REFBOMB/FV annoyance with this title weren't influencing my recommendation, I'd probably lean "delete". But, being perfectly frank and hopefully somewhat self-aware, I'm not convinced would be an entirely objective recommendation (based entirely on NBIO merit).... Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a tricky one to try and assess. Ultimately I think notability is not there. There is some coverage but is it significant? I think not. Looking at the academic side, I don't think the research and published works are there yet. The awards are non-notable really and as for the references, most are published own works. It almost feels kind of WP:Auto even if it isn't. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Ford Memorial Bridge

James C. Ford Memorial Bridge (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)

very short article which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO; only sources are a document on the bridge's renaming and a list of local bridges. harrz talk 19:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Knoxville, Tennessee - Highways where the last paragraph lists and names the bridges. Lamona (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a major bridge carrying a numbered state highway over a principal river of the U.S., in a major metropolitan area. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If kept, there need to be independent sources, right? None of the ones in the article are independent (with a possible exception for the Knoxville Focus, which is all of 6 sentences). Searching I find mentions in local guides, but nothing else. I'm relying on this of NGEO: Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG. Where their notability is unclear, they generally redirect to more general articles or to a named natural feature that prompted their creation, e.g., to an article about the notable road it carries or the notable obstacle it spans. Lamona (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of crossings of the Tennessee River#James C. Ford Memorial Bridge, which is the appropriate location for a redirect for this otherwise non-independently-notable bridge. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reasonable approach. Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee pages proposed for deletion

The following Tennessee-related pages have been proposed for deletion using the {{prod}} template:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Tennessee&oldid=1293179785"