Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas M. Ammons, III Award for Animal Welfare

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 delete. Good arguments on both sides but I see a slim consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas M. Ammons, III Award for Animal Welfare (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)

Local award, apparently being given to local people,and ,as one would expect, with only local sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Simply not enough significant coverage. As nominator pointed out, all coverage has been in local news souces. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1) WP:GEOSCOPE says an event MAY not be notable if only covered in local sources, so it is not sufficient just to point to local sources and say "not notable". 2) The "local" media we are talking about here includes essentially state-wide media (e.g., The Virginia Pilot, Virginia's largest daily). 3) Appears to be awarded every year, has a relatively high profile based on who it is named after. Meets WP:GNG on the basis of the sourcing already provided. FOARP (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per FOARP's arguments. I think it could be argued that the topic doesn't pass notability, but the opposite could also be argued per sources such as The Virginia Pilot. Being on the cusp like this, I don't think eliminating the topic (and easy opportunity for future improvement) would benefit Wikipedia at large. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Had to debate this one with myself a bit, but in the end, DGG is right in that this award has no reach outside the local area, so it seems. Sounds like he is a great guy, good judge and all that, but that isn't the criteria. To be notable requires that the award has a demonstrated (by the sources) impact outside a local area, and it doesn't establish that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GEOSCOPE isn't applicable as this is an award, not an event. Purely local coverage of local awards in the local section of a regional paper is not enough to establish notability. The size of the paper does not matter, it is the audience that matters. Also, just on the gut test, this should be deleted: this is an award that is less than 2 years old. There simply isn't any way that it could achieve enough importance in less than 24 months to actually be notable. Our guidelines are best read with common sense which dictates the deletion of this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2019 (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.