This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Kentucky. 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. 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|Kentucky|~~~~}} 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 Kentucky. 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/Kentucky/archive

Cassie Petrey (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)

Mildly promotional biography of a music marketer who fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG; moved to mainspace after being declined at AFC. She seems to have received some coverage for a past connection to Britney Spears, but her notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from Spears. The coverage of this connection is also tabloid coverage (Mirror, Daily Soap Dish, People), which is disallowed for establishing notability per WP:SBST. The remaining sources are limited to:

• WP:ROUTINE coverage in WP:TRADES publication MusicRow ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5])
• WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10])
• WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([11], [12])
• Promotional material like coverage in Forbes of a Forbes-sponsored panel discussion ([13])

As for her 30 Under 30 listings ([14], [15]), there is no consensus that these are the kinds of awards that would make someone independently notable under WP:ANYBIO. (The Forbes 30 under 30 is "awarded" to 1,230 people each year across geographies and industries so is not a rare honor.) I didn't find any other qualifying coverage in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Kentucky. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is nothing more than a glorified CV. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC) striking locked user's comment. Toadspike [Talk] 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe Cassie Petrey's Wikipedia page meets the notability criteria for individuals in the field of business and entertainment. Her contributions to the industry have been covered in notable publications such as Forbes, Billboard, and Rolling Stone, showcasing her influence and accomplishments.

Key points supporting her notability include:

• Leadership in innovative digital marketing campaigns for globally known artists, including Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys.
• Recognition in authoritative industry outlets and her inclusion in the Forbes 30 Under 30 list.
• Active contributions to discussions about artist-fan engagement in the digital age through interviews and articles.

The page provides verifiable sources documenting her work and impact, aligning with Wikipedia's content policies. Deleting this page would remove a valuable figure in the modern entertainment and marketing industries. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@24eeWikiUser Did you use ChatGPT or a similar program to generate this text? GPTZero gives this a 100% probability of being WP:AIGENERATED. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Leadership in digital marketing campaigns" is promotional language, I'm sure this is. Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: News items are about Spears and her social media, not particularly about this person. Outside of the Spears items, i don't see notability. The 30 under 30 lists don't contribute to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most coverage is not from reliable sources and the article is overall written like a promotional piece. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darel Chase (bishop) (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)

A non-notable clergy person. Sources that mention Chase are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (his personal website, a blog from a bishop in his church, his church's official website x2 x3 x4, x5, his church's international communion website, and corporate documents on the KY secretary of state's site); and an apparent WP:SPS WordPress blog. Several sources do not even mention Chase at all ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]); these are contributing to WP:SYNTH to draw connections about the subject not present in the sources. I found nothing qualifying in a WP:BEFORE search. Finally, let me address WP:BISHOPS since I am guessing it will come up. While AfD participants have debated the applicability of BISHOPS (and I have generally accepted it as a quasi-guideline since WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES align with it, even though it's not a P&G), this bishop does not even qualify under BISHOPS. The church he leads is a micro-denomination that is not part of the Anglican Communion or recognized by any of its member churches. Moreover, Chase is the pastor of an individual congregation, and bishops in this category are per CLERGYOUTCOMES not typically found notable by virtue of their office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Kentucky. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Oh man, that's an interesting character. I'm seeing a remarkably marginal case for notability here, but not enough for me to !vote one way or the other. Dclemens1971, do you mind pinging me at my talk page if I don't get back to this by next weekend? I would like to contribute to this discussion, but it looks like too deep a rabbit hole for this workweek. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pbritti I will try to remember! Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Definitely an interesting character, I'd say. He does definitely have a marginal case of notability, so I'll vote for it to be kept. And, isn't it a bit biased to call it a micro-denomination? It is a Christian denomination nonetheless, regardless of its size. It is also quite clear that he is not within the Anglican Communion. Is this a publishing house for authorized religions, or an encyclopedia? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's completely unbiased and reasonable to call it a "micro-denomination". It's own website parish directory lists just four churches. While another part of its website claims 43 churches (scroll down), there's no validation of this. Chase's own diocese appears to have just three churches. Two other dioceses (Diocese of St. Ignatius Loyola Diocese of the North-East appear to have just one church each, and a fourth (Diocese of Pelican Bay) has no website with information. And WP:BISHOPS and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, to the extent they are relied upon, specify "Anglican Communion" -- while I might prefer a different dividing line, I didn't make that up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:NOTFB, and WP:SIGCOV. You can't just call yourself a bishop. You have to be ordained in apostolic succession. WP:BISHOP is a guideline that only creates a presumption of existence that, like WP:NPOL, sources must exist somewhere, for bishops of major denominations. BISHOP doesn't necessarily assume notability; it just says how to set naming conventions. There is a different outcome guideline here: WP:CLERGY:

  People listed as bishops in Pentecostal denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third-party coverage. Clerics who hold the title bishop but only serve an individual parish or congregation are typically considered the same as local pastors or parish priests.

  The subject was, after lawsuits, left with a single congregation and fails significant coverage; all but two of the sources are not independent of the subject: one is about how secular and canon courts returned church property and doesn't even mention him by name and the other is a brief corporate listing. That is far below significant coverage, almost a velleity of verification. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a little more time to come to a clearer consensus. Some excellent points are being made though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While I'm sensitive to TheLionHasSeen's argument, this is a remarkably small denomination that's one of the hundreds that have a bishop-to-laity ratio smaller than my school's teacher-to-student ratio. As such, I'm not seeing a case for presumed notability. Recent coverage of a local scandal by Dreher notwithstanding, there is not particularized SIGCOV here that contributes to GNG. If there's something I'm not privy to that suggests notability might be established soon, I would not be opposed to an AtD like draftification. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]