Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triton Troupers Circus

Triton Troupers Circus

Triton Troupers Circus (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)

Article does not include a single reliable source and is written like an advertisment by an obviously conntected editor. The page was previously deleted in November 2007 by @Carlosguitar but subsequently recreated by the same user just a few days later, with no improvement on the previous deletion criteria. Topic fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH and lacks proper COI attribution on the talk page (WP:DISCLOSE), and thus should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 07:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
>> I've added a "connected contributor" block to the talk page as per your requested. Don't confuse being an expert on a topic with having a conflict of interest. - Bedno added 19:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Page does need improvement, neutral writing tone, and a better structure, but I don't think it deserves to be deleted. Despite the lack of reliable sources, judging from the information (and images) available, I think they are relatively known and I am going to cast a vote on that notion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferCraigCarter (talk • contribs) 11:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  Note for reviewer: The above comment's author is/was a suspected sockpuppet with questionable points made to various COI'd AfD discussions, which appears to be the majority of their edits. Lordtobi (✉) 14:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I am unconvinced that the local coverage in the press page is sufficient to pass WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I am the volunteer earnestly trying to meet Wikipedia guidelines to provide introduction and history on the amazing and long lived local institution that is Triton Troupers Circus. I've overhauled this page several times already at editor requests. I'm at a loss at this point as to how a robust set of references including offsite links to decades of photos and pages of press clippings and even a governmental honor, somehow doesn't demonstrate significance. I am open to specific suggestions or arbitration. Please forgive my novice editor skills, I hope I've posted this correctly. Bedno 25 April 2018
  • I don't think this robust set of references counts as much more than WP:SPS and some press releases, which are not WP:RS and do not pass WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• REVISIONS PLANNED, PATIENCE APPRECIATED. (Thanks Szzuk for relisting.) I've prioritized overhauling this entry *yet again* for neutral tone and other guidelines mentioned. But I again assert that this page is no differently written than ANY of those listed on your Circus_school page for example. And as a volunteer organization it's fundamentally not "written like an advertisment(sic)". Frankly the isolated critics seem oddly opinionated and vitriolic, but I'll incorporate their feedback anyway. Bedno added 19:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

  Circus school is a terrible article to use as excuse, just look at it: It is an introductory sentence followed by a bulleted list of exemplary circus schools, there is no real content there. What makes it worse is that only the list entries are sourced, and not all of them, and those that are sourced are sourced using the homepages of the cirucses in question. It'd rather be another deletion candidate than a reason to keep TTC. Also, any article can be written like an advertisement, commercial or not. Reading the articles gives the impression that the circus is the best circus, most popular circus of the U.S. and that it employs many world-famous artists, neither of which appears to be the case. I've cleaned the article up a bit, but that just scratched the tip of the iceberg. Stripping the article off unreliable references only leaves one Chicago Tribune citation (here's another also), which is not enough to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia.

  Let alone that Google only finds 100 (yes, 100) results when searching for the circus (this might be due to regional restrictions, but even in Europe, 100 is way too low), a quick search returns practically only YouTube videos, Facebook pages and events lists, no press coverage, especially no subsistantial coverage. The only source I could find is the one linked previously, and that is not subsistantial either, just routine coverage. Please review WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, and you will quickly realize that the article has no grounds to stay on Wikipedia. The circus might be for a good cause, but it is just not notable for Wikipedia, sorry. Lordtobi (✉) 22:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Contesting Lordtobi's vitriol: a Google search finds >16,000 mentions, not "100". Even fully quoted (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22triton+troupers+circus%22) returns more than 2000 relevant results. And there's TWO DOZEN press clippings covering decades (http://tritontrouperscircus.com/clippings) which you've dubiously invalidated to claim "no substantial coverage." Why the lies? Please stop harassing this page.Bedno (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)