Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Tennessee

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Tennessee/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Tennessee

Helen Hemphill

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

The following edit summary is a deletion request by ~2025-37774-02:

I am Helen Hemphill and am working to clean up my digital footprint. I would like to delete this page entirely or have it limited to my publications.
— ~2025-37774-02 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed vote). Delete. Her works have had some critical attention (see eg [1]) and won or been nominated for some awards, but not to the WP:NAUTHOR threshold. The two sources currently cited in the article are an interview with the subject and her university page, and I can't find sources that would meet WP:GNG. As the subject is not a public figure and is of borderline notability, deleting the article seems sensible. Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to keep; does meet the threshold for significant critical attention per the thorough review from Bridget below. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:NAUTHOR based on critical reception of all three of her books. Bridget (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Long Gone Daddy was reviewed in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews

Runaround was reviewed in the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy [2], Publishers Weekly, and Kirkus Reviews

Deadwood Jones was reviewed in Kirkus Reviews, ALAN Review[3], and possibly this NCTE article here

James Blasingame's Books for Adolescents (accessible via EBSCO here) seems to contain reviews for some children's books including Long Gone Daddy and Runaround. There's also interviews in Teacher Librarian[4] and Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy [5]. I think this pushes it out of the borderline notability zone and into a clear pass (despite the request from the article subject). Best, Bridget (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Encyclopedia.com: Long Gone Daddy was also reviewed in Booklist (May 1, 2006, p. 81), The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books (June 2006, p. 454), Kliatt (May 2006, p. 10), and School Library Journal (July 2006, p. 104). Best, Bridget (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on WP:ATD, the primary motivation for the deletion request is non-publication related information. The notability is all based on publications. I have removed the detail on the non-notable schoolteaching career, which should take care of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumn astronomer (talk • contribs) 09:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - removal of personal / career information seems to be appropriate, but she passed the relevant tests for notability of an author. I would also suggest a copy edit of additional details. Bearian (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Tennessee Titans–Arizona Cardinals game

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. While this game was something of an upset and it got a little more coverage than usual due to the conflict between the Cardinals head coach and one of his players, due to an unusual and costly error that resulted in them losing the game, along with the winning touchdown for the Titans being extremely bizzare and was quite fortunate for them, they did not receive enough to be considered "extensive", as the game was moved on from by the media by the next week. This game by itself will most certainly not significantly impact the sport in the long term, either - there is simply no evidence of that. TheInevitables (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, Arizona, and Tennessee. jolielover♥talk 01:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even the slightest hint at a possibility of becoming a historical game. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No lasting coverage to pass WP:SPORTSEVENT/WP:NEVENT. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTEVERYTHING and there is no reason for us to be the catalog for every slightly "interesting" NFL game ever played. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only 'history' this WP:MILL game created was a bit of shuffling in their Tank Bowl standings, neither team is going anywhere this year. Nathannah • 📮 18:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable regular season game with very little WP:SIGCOV beyond what is routinely available for any other game. Frank Anchor 18:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, the Grammar Police are looking for the perps for misdemeanor overuse of "would". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rlendog (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neither team isn't going anywhere this season and this game is already being forgotten about. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE everywhere here. Conyo14 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Music Awards

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

Promotion for non notable film awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. PR for winners is not independent reliable coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no opinion on the article itself, but I did want to note that the subject is an award for music, not films. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gnews brings up hundreds of mentions of people winning these awards, from the US and Canada. That would imply the award is well-known, not some "pay to play award" we see here being brought up. Sources are too many to mention, but this seems notable based on the volume of coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles, like the first hit [6], that are individual local wins an award are basically just PR for that individual and not independent coverage about the awards in general. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well known award show, very notable. Deserved to stay. ~2025-37189-75 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: It's an award show for independent music artists and legends as well (this past year was Lorrie Morgan). https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CmZYc3scd/

The Josie Music Awards should stay. ~2025-37189-75 (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina–Tennessee football rivalry

AfDs for this article:

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

Result of first discussion was Delete and the second discussion closed without consensus. But as most of us know, and if anyone don't already, consensus can change. But anyways, the no consensus was basically a keep since consensus is needed to delete. But I want to point to the previous discussion specifically in 2023. WP:HEY played a big role in resulting in a no consensus. But one argument specifically for Delete was Provided sources are all opinion or news sources: nothing solid that covers this subject from a reliable standpoint, like a book or a website by a scholar: this is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator. Come back when you have something that has a strong reputation for reliability.. Anyways, one thing I really would like to bring up is that the sources provided on the second discussion would generally seem reliable, but they also appear to be local and would count towards being a primary source. And rivalries should generally need more than just local sources (Even reliable sources) on rivalries. E.G. Red Sox Yankees, Michigan Ohio State, Packers Bears, Flames Oilers, Lakers Celtics are examples of rivalries that should get coverage beyond sources from their own city or region. Unrelated to this rivalry, an article on Cardinals Mets rivalry was deleted with one of the later comments/arguments showing the same concerns I have here that most reliable sources reporting on it are local and do not count, or count very little towards GNG. And frankly, almost all conference teams are rivals in someway, but not all have articles on them as there wouldn't be much to report on besides stats and the fact they are conference rivals. Unless anyone can find Independent reliable sources (E.G. ones without names like Tennessee, Knoxville, Carolina or cities within these states) this probably would fail GNG and should be deleted. I don't think one mention from Bleacher Report is enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you suggesting are primary? A local newspaper is not necessarily primary. If it was a university newspaper from one of the two subjects of the article that would likely be primary (and also not independent), but an unaffiliated newspaper in the city or state where the university is located would most likely not be primary source for describing a rivalry between the two schools. Rlendog (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rlendog Sorry for the late response. I try to do these things quicker. I know you are probably not going to see this for a few hours considering the time in the United States. Anyways, a response at around 3:35PM my time (AEST). Anyways, I know editors often disagree on these issues, but I actually feel like these are somewhat primary sources. I definitely wouldn't call them tertiary sources. I feel like they are mostly opinion articles. Example, this one: [7] specifically says why it means so much to a certain team so not independent. This one definitely looks like a primary source: [8]. This one: [9] is a web archive from a site called VolsWire so not Independent. This one, I can't even tell if it is reliable: [10], but it appears to be a source covering news in the state of South Carolina, so I would say it does not count towards GNG. And while this one appears reliable: [11], I wouldn't consider it tertiary or counting towards GNG because it appears to be a newspaper from South Carolina considering it appears to have the Palmetto Tree in it's name styling. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3:35PM is when I started typing. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a newspaper is in the state of South Carolina doesn't make it a primary source for anything involving the University of South Carolina. Any more than a New York newspaper would be a primary source for coverage of a New York City mayor, or a newspaper in the United States would be a primary source for coverage of the United States Congress, or a newspaper in Canada would be a primary source for coverage of King Charles. Rlendog (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rlendog I honestly think it is a case by case for whether or not to count it as a primary source. E.G. I would not count sources like New York Times for Yankees/Mets or Washington Post for Nationals for example. But my rationale is that these local sources cover have mostly local coverage. I honestly think the way we should treat sports rivalries and primary sources should honestly be different to other topics. E.G. almost everyone in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area is a fan of teams like the Blues and Cardinals. But not everyone is going to have a positive view on local leaders. For King Charles III, I honestly feel like it should not be considered as primary as these Newspapers considering not everyone is interested. I honestly think there should be more nuance to what is considered a primary source. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our guidelines do not treat sports rivalries different from other subjects with respect to the definition of primary versus secondary sources. If you feel they should be treated differently then you can start an RfC to get the guidelines changed. But until the guidelines change it is a waste of editors time to start AfD's based on your personal views on what the guidelines should be. Rlendog (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a good rationale. Just because a newspaper is local doesn't make it "primary." NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 23:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to object to the idea that all newspapers in the same state as a team are primary/non-independent sources. I thought your mention of the Cardinals-Mets rivalry AfD was useful on this point because Frank Anchor's comment there explained why the local papers' coverage was non-independent. For instance, he considered the St. Louis News-Dispatch article non-independent coverage not because it's a St. Louis paper, but because its coverage consisted "almost exclusively content from interviews of Cardinals and Mets employees". I don't think this is necessarily a rivalry worth a stand-alone article, but I also don't think that "all the in-depth coverage comes from in-state but non-university sources" is a compelling reason to say it fails WP:GNG.

Local Internet User (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first discussion was before the article had time to be built out. You are hard pressed to find a book or scholarly website that covers college sports, let alone college football rivalries even major ones like Tennessee-Alabama or South Carolina-Clemson. College sports and college football are inherently local and the local coverage provided in the article exceeds the criteria laid out.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnsc20 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC) OceanGunfish (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee pages proposed for deletion

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