Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriots Point War Dog Memorial

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. Davewild (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patriots Point War Dog Memorial

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

I can't find any reliable source that this exists. There are a lot of mirrors when you do a search. The link provided is dead and websites that mention the memorial link to this page - creating a dead end. If it exists, I believe it fails GNG as it stands is likely not notable Gbawden (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Patriots Point, which definitely exists. Delete, see below. Also, I don't remember seeing this when I last went to Patriots Point. Jinkinson talk to me 15:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to make the same merge suggestion if the memorial existed, but I'm not sure it does. I found an archived version of the original reference which seems sincere if not a reliable source at http://archive.today/6KpL0 and pointers to that reference in a number of places but nothing else. Nothing at the Patriots Point website, no images anywhere. Contrast this with the South Carolina War Dog Memorial. Of course, I may have missed something beyond the original reference which is why I've labeled this as a comment. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, thanks for reminding me that was in dispute. Anyway, I have used the Wayback Machine to "resurrect" the dead link mentioned by Gbawden and the only source in the article: [1] The dubiousness of this site and the fact that we have no way of knowing who wrote it doesn't seem to make it a RS, which is why I am striking my initial merge vote in favor of voting delete. (Also there aren't really any other sources except mirrors, as Gbawden noted.) Jinkinson talk to me 21:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails verification in a reliable source, and anyway lacks notability for failure to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2014 (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.