Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel (therapy dog)

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. Geschichte (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angel (therapy dog)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is just a regurgitation of numerous press releases and social media pages, and frankly, given the prominent links to the plush toys and book (and the owner's salon!), it strikes me as downright promotional. I'm sure Angel was a lovely animal, but this is not encyclopedic. The best source is a human-interest fluff piece from a local ABC affiliate (see WP:AUD for why that's not a great indicator of notability). The rest are blogs, press releases, and unreliable websites. I didn't find anything more solid on a search, either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entire sections of this article breach WP:PROMO and WP:NOTNEWS, with much unreliable sourcing (blogs, websites). With those removed, what is left does not meet GNG. William Harris (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per William Harris's comments and per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG as most of the sources that provide SIGCOV are independent of the subject (if not downright unreliable), additionally as the nom states is skirts very close to PROMO. Cavalryman (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:RS appears to be lacking Jenyire2 19:32, 5 February 2021 (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.