Shuckey Duckey: Given the prominence of the catchphrase, I would've thought there'd at least be more discussing its originator, but I didn't see anything.  Without that, I think this article mostly falls under WP:NOTDIC and I don't see much point in it staying.  Unless someone else finds all the coverage I somehow couldn't.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Texas .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The claim of notability is tenuous at best and there is hardly any coverage to suggest that WP:GNG is met.  -- Kinu t / c 06:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete dosen't meet WP:GNG requirements 1keyhole ( talk ) 16:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  There is one publication which has some coverage of him according to its index, Darryl Littleton.  Black Comedians on Black Comedy: How African-Americans Taught Us to Laugh .  Applause Theatre & Cinema Books.  p. 316.  , but unfortunately that page is not available for viewing in google books and it is impossible to assess the quality of that coverage.  I did find one review from James Madison University 's paper dating back to 1996.  I would imagine that there are more reviews in magazines and newspapers from the pre-internet era.  Has anyone looked at newspaper.com who has access?  I did find that some of his artifacts (programs, posters, etc.) are part of the collection at the University of North Texas Library .  I suspect that this person is notable but that the majority of evidence to prove it is going to be either offline or behind a paywall.  Anyone with subscription access or access to the archives of the Dallas Morning News or Dallas Observer or Fort Worth Star-Telegram would probably be able to find some good coverage, and I would think other newspapers from his touring would have reviews.  To be clear I am not offering keep or delete opinion here; but a general comment on where sources are likely to be found.  Best.  4meter4 ( talk ) 17:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Passes WP:SIGCOV .  Here are reviews from the Boston Globe , Hartford Courant , North Dallas Gazette , and Buffalo News all relating to his work as the ringmaster/comedian of the UniverSoul Circus.  The coverage is more than in passing.  I voted weak keep because other than the JMU review above, the reviews are of a larger production and not just him.  4meter4 ( talk ) 18:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - based on the sources found by 4meter4 , I'm leaning a keep.  Bearian ( talk ) 18:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  03:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  After assessing the above sources, my ! vote remains unchanged.  I'm still not seeing enough about Armstrong himself outside of mentions in context of the circus to be able to justify a BLP article.  On another note, some of those sources would be useful for improving the article UniverSoul Circus .  -- Kinu t / c 05:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My stance is the same. There's only so much being said about the man in these pieces. I would be fine if they were used for a brief profile in the UniverSoul page though. Just doesn't seem like you'd get more than a paragraph total out of them all. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 10:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ QuietHere and Kinu Perhaps, a redirect to UniverSoul Circus per WP:ATD ? There is certainly enough coverage in these sources to add some coverage of him into that article as Kinu stated. 4meter4 ( talk ) 14:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that works. Could always be split back off if more coverage is located later. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think a redirect is a reasonable outcome as well. -- Kinu t / c 15:09, 12 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect