This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Canada. 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:
Edit this page 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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Canada|~~~~}} 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Canada.
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 Americas.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Fails WP:GNG. Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct. Unsourced (though I know that's probably fixable). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The team easily passes GNG due to substantial news coverage in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes. Here are a few of the more recent news on the team. [1][2][3][4][5] I question whether the nominator completed WP:BEFORE on this nomination. I'm baffled what is meant by "Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct". As per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the article might be poorly sourced in its current state, but can easily be improved. Flibirigit (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed complete a before search. I found numerous news articles regarding the move of the team, all based on press releases. I found routine coverage, e.g. of matches. I found articles based on what a spokesperson for the team said, without WP:SECONDARY analysis. I found nothing that was WP:INDEPTH, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT to satisfy GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of newly found sources to see if GNG is met. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. I think the NACTOR debate has been reasonably addressed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could find no sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, the notability test for actors and actresses is not automatically passed just by listing roles, and requires the provision of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about her and her roles, but none is present here and I've had about as much luck as the above commenters at finding anything better. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject specific guideline for voice actors has been met. WP:NACTOR states: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3045630/ She played one of the three Power Puff girls in all 52 episodes of Powerpuff Girls Z. She played Nya in Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu for 100 episodes. Wikipedia:Notability clearly states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". You don't have to do both. Also those linking to WP:THREE, kindly ready the personal essay you are linking to, it states don't list more than three sources in an AFD or no one will bother looking them over. DreamFocus 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notability test for actors isn't passed just by having acting roles. Having acting roles is literally an actor's job description, so by definition every actor has had acting roles or else they wouldn't be an actor — which in turn means that if simply having acting roles were an instant notability freebie in and of itself, then every actor who exists at all would get that freebie and no actor could ever be non-notable at all anymore. The notability test for actors is passed by having WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them and their performances. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they had GNG coverage then they'd pass the GNG and the subject specific guidelines wouldn't need to exist. Some are notable based on their accomplishments alone, others are notable because they got coverage by the media. More than one way to prove notability exist. DreamFocus 09:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject played a significant role in all episodes of one notable work (PPGZ), voiced a primary character in the English version of all episodes of Tara Duncan (TV series), and played one character over 200 times in various iterations of Ninjago. By my reading, this is a clear pass of NACTOR, even for a voice or translation actor. User:Dream Focus and I often disagree, but we agree here WP:THREE is an essay with no relevance to this discussion, and the subject meets the SNG with lots of significant (even repeating) roles in their field. It's a BLP, so I'd like reliable sources about the person, but WP:ENT is met, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNGs still require reliable source referencing to properly verify their passage, so claiming to pass an SNG is not in and of itself an exemption from having to have GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I spent 30 minutes this morning trying to find a single RS on the subject, and the best I did was bare mentions. When I made my keep assertion, I failed to look for RS. There's an enormous amount of entertainment content out there on the subject, but none of it seems to come from sources which are reliable and have a reputation for journalism (or fact checking). While it is true the subject is abundantly verified, I've found nothing approaching direct detailing in RS, so I'm striking my keep assertion. I apologize to other participants in this process. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over WP:NACTOR is met. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's had several significant roles but there is no coverage. Bold in following quotes is added for emphasisWP:Notability (people) (which includes WP:NACTOR) states: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.WP:Notability states : Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia Even WP:NACTOR only says may be considered notable. Schazjmd(talk) 14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that this article may be deleted, since "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". I added cite needed tags to request WP:RSs, but another editor deleted them, adding more WP:OR instead. If WP:OR is added again, such as the unreferenced assertion that she voiced x number of episodes, User:Schazjmd, it will convince me that the article ought to be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research. WP:OR, under primary, states:
3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
So listing information listed in the credits of the primary source, is acceptable. So she voiced Buttercup, one of the three powerpuff girls in the show Powerpuff Girls Z, so was of course credited as being in every single episode. There was not a single episode that didn't have all three girls in it. And if you want to know what year the show was on, you can just click the link to the article for it, or if you want it in this article for some reason, you can just copy it from the primary source without problems. You don't need a secondary source for something no primary source would have any possible reason to lie about. DreamFocus 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are interpreting WP:OR too narrowly. You are not offering a listing by the publisher of all the episodes showing her name, you are asking the reader to synthesize each individual episode's credits (not easily accessible) to note that her name is listed, and then count up the number of such episodes. Again, if this sort of fancruft is re-added to the article without a WP:RS, it will emphasize the paucity of coverage for this person. Is there really not a single review mentioning any of her performances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2024 (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.
This article has had zero independent sources cited since it was created six years ago. I am unable to find any significant discussion of the organization in reliable sources. ...discospinstertalk 01:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' There's a little bit out there on this company, but not from reliable sources. I can't see the full text of the Martin Boewe doctoral thesis; if it has RS citations perhaps that could save this article, but where those citations would come from is anyone's guess. As it is, it's possibly eligible for CSD G11 (blatant promotion).keep per WP:HEY rewriting of article based on sources from @CunardOblivy (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lifechanyuan started from Zimbabwe when Xuefeng lived there and the 1st Second Home was built in Yunnan China so most of the theory(Lifechanyuan values) and introduction articles are in Chinese, with only a small portion of its theory and introductory articles translated into English, that's why the sources of the information is difficult to find.
Dr. Martin Boewe and his wife visited the 4th branch of the Second Home in 2012, during which they had an interview with founder Xuefeng, here are the links for his interview （1-3）:
It is imperative to accurately convey what Lifechanyuan truly represents to the world, without misunderstanding or misleading the public. As a member of Lifechanyuan for nearly 18 years, I aim to share the truth based on the past 16 years of practice of the Second Home, spanning from China to Canada. Tongxincao (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are Chinese language secondary sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, then you should offer them up here. A YouTube interview with the founder is not going to do it. Oblivy (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this, the more I think there should be an article. But not this article. I found a single WP:RS article from the New York Times in 2014[6] but it's paywalled. Somewhere there's an interesting follow-up story to be told. Probably not one for Wikipedia until that story gets published but someone feel free to surprise me.The article creator @Snewman8771 is a SPA which did just three things: create the article, wikilink to an article on intentional communities, and then two years later try to create an article about East Turkistan Republican Party which was declined.[7]. @Tongxincao your account was created on the same day in 2015 as @Snewman8771. He started editing in 2018 and then stopped, and you didn't start until 2023. [8][9]. Can you explain? Oblivy (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was in China from 2015 to 2022, during which I have very limited access to WIKIPEDIA, and our communities in Chins were always under monitor, so I was quite careful to get access to google and facebook etc. Besides I am not familiar with the rules and how do people add new items on Wikipedia, I think put a brief introduction for Lifechanyuan will not be a big problem for Snewman8771. So we didn't pay much attention on it as we are focused on the community establishment and safe existence in China at that time.
In Nov 2022, I came to Canada and after settlement, we plan to develop the society with our founder and members together. We are looking for some volunteers to come and help our work in Canada，so the introduction of society here in WIKIPEDIA is important and must be true and clear. Tongxincao (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to introduce societies and organizations to the rest of the world, it is to document things that are already written about in reliable, third-party sources. Furthermore, some of the previous content in the article was highly promotional in tone, which makes it seem like you are trying to use Wikipedia's popularity to recruit new members. ...discospinstertalk 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply @User:Tongxincao. You should read the conflct of interest rules as you have a close relationship with this organization.Can you clarify whether you were involved in the edits by @Snewman8771? How did it come that both accounts were registered on the same day?Oblivy (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain about the detailed requirements of Wikipedia, and how reliable second sources are defined, but information displayed on it should be based on facts, avoiding conveying misinformation. I believe that is a fundamental rule. There are very few reliable second sources of Lifechanyuan in English, as it is a small group rooted in China, and only a few members are proficient in English. I can gather some sources in Chinese to verify the information, including English sources from Ecovillage network newsletters or reports from our sister communities, although some of their links may have expired or changed (though I have the PDF or JPG files). As you may know, the media in China is controlled by the government, and reports related to religion, belief, etc., including Lifechanyuan, are forbidden from being published. This has been ongoing for many years.
Lifechanyuan is based on all articles written by founder Xuefeng since 2001, totaling over 3000 articles. Only a small part of it has been translated into English, and it is not well-known to the public.
Snewman8771 joined Lifechanyuan and became a member in 2018, his member name is Kasi Celestial. In China, access to some internet platforms is restricted, making it difficult for us to reach out to Wikipedia or Facebook, besides the rule for editing WIKIPEDIA looks quite complicated for us. Snewman8771 offered to help edit, but as a new member, he was only familiar with a brief history and didn't fully understand our values and information. Due to communication challenges, we were unable to clarify, so we left it as it was. Now, I would like to revise and present it accurately to the public. Tongxincao (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article notes: "Members of this idyllic utopian commune tucked away in the mountains of southwest China share an agrarian life that would probably have delighted Chairman Mao: Every day they volunteer six hours to work the fields, feed their jointly owned chickens and prepare enough food to fill every belly in the community. The bounty of their harvest is divided equally and apparently without strife, part of a philosophy that emphasizes selflessness and egalitarian living over money and materialism. “What we’re doing here is basically communism,” said Xue Feng, 57, the soft-spoken founder of Shengmin Chanyuan, or New Oasis for Life, whose 150 members include illiterate peasants and big-city corporate refugees. “People do what they can and get what they need.”"
The journal notes: "In Lincang Prefecture, a rural subtropical area in southwest Yunnan near the borders of Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam, a group of 150 people from different walks of life came together to create the Shengming chanyuan 'New Oasis for Life Commune' (Levin 2014). This Buddhist inspired community sought to create a self-sustaining and spiritual alternative to what they regard as an alienating and materialistic society found in the sprawling cities of modern China. As is discussed further below, these people are drawing upon a long Chinese tradition of escape to the mountains for the purposes of solitude, meditation, and respite. What is interesting about the New Oasis instance is the choice of location. To have created such a community in Lincang before 1978, or even before 1949, would have been extremely difficult. Lincang is a border region that for most of its history has been inhabited by various non-Han minorities. It was a remote and often dangerous place for the unwary visitor, a place that James C Scott (2010) regards as part of a larger highland zone he calls "Zomia" that for much of history was beyond the immediate reach of centralized states. But times have changed and the once "remote" and "dangerous" places have now been made "accessible" and "tame." Unfortunately for the members of this community, the local authorities looked upon this religiously inspired endeavor with great skepticism and used various measures to make them disband."
The article notes: "En la última parte del artículo, presento un estudio de caso del Templo Zen de la Vida (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple). Se trata de un movimiento idiosincrásico tanto por su insistencia en ser a la vez comunista y religio como por sus experimentos sobre el amor libre. También es un buen ejemplo de los efectos de los cambios legislativos y administrativos de Xi, ya que pasó de lo rojo a lo gris y, finalmente, en 2021, a lo negro."
From Google Translate: "In the last part of the article, I present a case study of the Life Zen Temple (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple). It is an idiosyncratic movement both for its insistence on being both communist and religious and for its experiments in free love. It is also a good example of the effects of Xi's legislative and administrative changes, as he moved from red to gray and finally, in 2021, to black."
The article notes on page 57: "El 28 de abril de 2021, a partir de la 1:00 de la madrugada, la Seguridad Pública y agentes de la unidad especializada en la lucha contra el xie jiao empezaron a hacer redadas en los dos asentamientos comunales del Templo Zen de la Vida (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple), situados en zonas remotas del condado de Tongzi y del condado de Anlong, en la provincia de Guizhou. A las 6:30 de la mañana, ya habían tomado el control de los dos locales, donde vivían unos 100 devotos de 13 provincias diferentes. Fue una redada clásica contra una “secta”, aclamada por la policía como un éxito total (he reconstruido el incidente basándome en los comunicados de prensa de la Seguridad Pública de Guizhou)."
From Google Translate: "On April 28, 2021, starting at 1:00 in the morning, Public Security and agents from the unit specialized in the fight against xie jiao began to raid the two communal settlements of the Zen Temple of the Life (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple), located in remote areas of Tongzi County and Anlong County, Guizhou Province. At 6:30 in the morning, they had already taken control of the two premises, where about 100 devotees from 13 different provinces lived. It was a classic “cult” raid, hailed by the police as a complete success (I have reconstructed the incident based on press releases from Guizhou Public Security)."
Wei, Jing 魏婧, ed. (2021-07-27). "自称上帝使者，鼓吹性爱自由……"生命禅院"非法组织被依法取缔！" [Claiming to be a messenger of God and advocating freedom of sex... the illegal organization "Shengmin Chanyuan" was banned according to law!] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
The article notes: "中国网7月27日讯 据中国反邪教网消息，自称上帝使者，鼓吹性爱自由，裹挟成员聚居，“生命禅院”非法组织被依法取缔！"
From Google Translate: "China Net reported on July 27 that according to the China Anti-Cult Network, the illegal organization "Lifechanyuan" was banned according to law because he claimed to be a messenger of God, advocated freedom of sex, and coerced members to live in gatherings!"
The article notes: "从2002年起，张自繁借用佛教、基督教、伊斯兰教、道教等宗教理论，并歪曲现实社会提倡的种种价值观，再糅杂一些心灵鸡汤，编造出一套唬人的“生命禅院”理念。之后，他又以“雪峰”为笔名，将这些所谓的理念集结成册，先后印制了《雪峰文集》《禅院文集》《新时代人类八百理念》等书籍。后来，这些书籍也成为张自繁对信徒实施精神控制的重要工具。"
From Google Translate: "Since 2002, Zhang Zifan has borrowed religious theories such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Taoism, distorted various values promoted by the real society, and mixed in some chicken soup for the soul to concoct a set of bluffing "Life Chanyuan" concepts. After that, he used the pen name "Xue Feng" to collect these so-called ideas into books, and successively printed books such as "Xue Feng Collected Works", "Zen Yuan Collected Works", and "Eight Hundred Ideas of Humanity in the New Era". Later, these books also became an important tool for Zhang Zifan to exercise mental control over his believers."
"現實版1Q84：婚姻是痛苦根源" [Reality version 1Q84: Marriage is the source of pain]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. p. B3.
The article notes: "香港蘋果日報報導，生命禪院的「理論基礎」是雪峰數十萬字關於人生的意義、36維空間、20個平行時間等論述，聽得人一頭霧水。唯一聽懂的其中一項核心理念：婚姻家庭是痛苦根源。 ... 「我們的情愛性愛是比較自由的！」從紐西蘭回國、年約30歲的雙胞胎姊妹顏渝和顏瑾，是生命禪院裡擁有高學歷的成員，她們在海外原本過著很好的生活、擁有良好的職業，但受這兒純樸的集體生活吸引，去年6月加入。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Apple Daily reported that the "theoretical basis" of Lifechanyuan is Xuefeng's hundreds of thousands of words on the meaning of life, 36-dimensional space, 20 parallel times, etc., which makes people confused. One of the core concepts I only understand: marriage and family are the source of suffering. ... "Our love and sex are relatively free!" Twin sisters Yan Yu and Yan Jin, about 30 years old, who returned from New Zealand, are highly educated members of Lifechanyuan. They used to live a very happy life overseas. I have a good life and a good career, but I was attracted by the simple collective life here and joined in June last year."
"「共妻淫亂」 生命禪院被斷水電 雲南「第二家園」 性愛自由、人人皆「情人」 成員改名換姓務農自足 3分院面臨解散" ["Shared Wife and Fornication" Lifechanyuan was cut off from water and electricity. Yunnan's "Second Home" offers free sex and everyone is a "lover". Members changed their names to work in farming and are self-sufficient. Branch 3 is facing dissolution.]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. p. B3.
The article notes: "中國唯一自稱真正實施共產主義的社區─雲南省「生命禪院第二家園」，近日遭當局以「共產共妻聚眾淫亂」等理由取締，三個分院面臨解散危機。港媒近日深入該社區，發現區內雖推崇性愛自由、以女性為尊，卻沒有想像中的肉慾橫流，而是由失婚婦女與逃避社會壓力的年輕人等，以各自獨立又相互合作的方式共同生活。"
From Google Translate: "The only community in China that claims to truly implement communism, the "Lifechanyuan Second Home" in Yunnan Province, was recently banned by the authorities on the grounds of "communist wives gathering together for lewdness", and the three branches are in danger of being disbanded. Hong Kong media recently went deep into the community and discovered that although sexual freedom and respect for women are respected in the community, it is not as sensual as imagined. Instead, divorced women and young people escaping from social pressure work independently and cooperatively. live together."
The article notes: "香港蘋果日報報導，位於雲南的「生命禪院第二家園」成立至今四年多，園內約150名成員皆不得擁有私人財產，且放棄原本姓名，改用被稱為「精神導遊」的56歲創建者「雪峰」賜名，彼此則互稱「禪院草」。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Apple Daily reported that it has been more than four years since the establishment of the "Lifechanyuan Second Home" in Yunnan. About 150 members of the park are not allowed to own private property, and have given up their original names and replaced them with the 56-year-old "spiritual tour guide." The founder "Xue Feng" gave the name to each other, and they called each other "Zen Yuan Cao"."
"「婚姻是痛苦根源」" ["Marriage is a source of suffering"]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
The article notes: "雪峰告訴記者生命禪院的「理論基礎」是他數十萬字關於人生的意義、36維空間、20個平行時間等論述，聽得人一頭霧水。"
From Google Translate: "Xuefeng told reporters that the "theoretical basis" of Lifechanyuan is his hundreds of thousands of words on the meaning of life, 36-dimensional space, 20 parallel times, etc., which made people confused."
"云南社区 共产共妻 性爱自由回归自然" [Yunnan community communism and wife sharing, sexual freedom returns to nature]. Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese). 2014-01-19. p. A23.
The article notes: "中国云南一个自称是真正实施共产主义的社区，近日被官方以“聚众淫乱”为由，即将面临取缔。香港《苹果日报》记者近日采访这个推崇性爱自由、回归自然的“生命禅院第二家园”。记者发现，社区没有想像中的肉欲横流。官方指控的所谓“聚众淫乱”，其实他们是不鼓励一对一的爱情或性关系。生命社区第二家园创于2009年，在云南省共有3所分院。社区常驻人口150人，投入集体生活前要经半年考察，加入社区后可随时退出。"
From Google Translate: "A community in Yunnan, China, which claims to be the real implementation of communism, has been officially banned recently on the grounds of "gathering people for lewdness". A reporter from Hong Kong's "Apple Daily" recently interviewed this "Lifechanyuan Second Home", which advocates freedom of sex and returning to nature. The reporter found that the community was not as sensual as imagined. The so-called "gathering of people for lewdness" that the authorities accuse is actually discouraging one-to-one love or sexual relationships. Life Community Second Home was founded in 2009 and has 3 branches in Yunnan Province. The permanent population of the community is 150. Before joining the collective life, a six-month inspection is required. After joining the community, you can withdraw at any time."
"三所分院常驻人口051人" [The three branches have a permanent population of 051.]. China Press (in Chinese). 2014-01-19. p. B5.
The article notes: "生命禅院第二家园创于2009年，在云南省共有三所分院，常驻人口150人，年纪最大的87岁，最小的5岁。投入集体生活前要经半年考察，在网上交流，可随时退出。"
From Google Translate: "Lifechanyuan Second Home was founded in 2009. It has three branches in Yunnan Province with a permanent population of 150. The oldest is 87 years old and the youngest is 5 years old. Before joining the collective life, you need to undergo an inspection for half a year, communicate online, and you can withdraw at any time."
@Cunard well done as always bringing the sources. The difficulty I have with this article is the disconnect between what's in the page and what can be documented. Let's assume someone wants to do the significant revision required to eliminate proselytizing and otherwise unencyclopedic content. What would then be left would be three propositions:
there was a commune in Yunnnan in the late 1990's and early 2000s - well established, can almost get to notability with the NYT article but Apple Daily seems to be based on information the founder has provided to them, not independent journalism. I couldn't find the world journal articles but if they are just regurgitating A.D.... Nanyang Siang Pau maybe?
there was a crackdown - well established through Chinese media, can describe them based on Chinese media reports plus the Introvigne article. There's a bunch of unreliable media out there as well on this.
the founder moved to Canada and his organization continues to recruit members while he refines his philosophy and issues volume after volume of deep thoughts - notability not well established except through self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability
I think that is a good outline of the topics that could be covered in article. The article could also cover what Shengmin Chanyuan's followers believe since pages 60–62 of Introvigne 2022 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIntrovigne2022 (help) discuss that. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done my part revising the article so it is based on reliable sources. I had to put in some primary sources just to bring the article up to date as AFAIK no reliable secondary source has mentioned them since they came to Canada. I'll change my vote to keep provided that the article remains objective.One final comment - the article was created as Lifechanyuan International Family Society apparently following the rejection of Lifechanyuan at AfC. LIFS is the Canada reboot of the Chinese commune. The rebuilt article is about Lifechanyuan as a movement rather than the Canadian commune, suggest a rename to Lifechanyuan once this is finished. Oblivy (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Apple newspaper was in Hongkong and they are one of the medias resisting Communist Party, so they came and interviewed some members, but they were not reporting our community in an objective angle, they are using it to attack the Central government. And the official source claiming we were illegal in 2021 is the media from Chinese government.
The New York Times reported us in around the end of 2013 when we were facing the 1st disbandment from authority.
For the times and facts, there are some mistakes as well.
I appreciate your effort of investigating the sources and try to introduce in your way, but what it is is what it is, and what is fact is fact, this is not an academic content, cannot be edited by the way of only based on limited sources. On behalf of our society, we require to delete it, let people search and investigate, read and experience by themselves, but not by the limit information and reports from non-independant medias. Thank you. Tongxincao (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is neutrally written and sourced to reliable sources (except for two sentences appropriately sourced to the company's website and a press release that explains what the group's beliefs and its current practice). Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself says:
Anything you submit will be edited mercilessly to make it neutral. Many autobiographical articles have become a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in several instances their original authors have asked that they be deleted – usually unsuccessfully, because if an article qualifies for deletion the community will typically do that without prompting, and an article won't be deleted just because its subject is unhappy with it.
Thank you so much for your excellent work cleaning up the article, Oblivy (talk·contribs)! I really appreciate it! Cunard (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We hope this can be deleted because the information is not correct, objective, and complete, for example it says "couples sleep separately", this is so wierd in expression and will scare and mislead people. The truth is that everyone in the community is independent so there is no "couples" or "marriages" in the community. This will mislead people so much, therefore it will mislead the public seriously on what real Lifechanyuan is. Tongxincao (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please raise further content concerns about the article on Talk:Lifechanyuan International Family Society as those concerns belong on the talk page rather than at AfD. The New York Times article says, "Certainly, some aspects of the group’s structure and practices are rather unorthodox. Members are known as celestials, all property is shared, and couples sleep apart." The wording in the Wikipedia article is an accurate paraphrase of The New York Times article. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Couples sleep apart" is not a correct and complete description, because there is no marriage and family in the new life mode of the Second Home, and couples are well prepared for this before they decided to join the community and live a collective community life. Therefore, each part of the original couple has their own bedroom, but they can sleep together when they feel like to do so. As an adult, everyone has their own bedroom as the space of his/her own. The reporter from New York Times visited us when we are encountering disbandment in the end of 2013, so they just stayed for several hours and did really quick interview with limited information being understand and collected.
I have mentioned several times all the sources being quoted here is limited and there is not a deep and complete report introducing what Lifechanyuan and the Second Home really is. Plus there are mistakes on time, date, and place, number of members around the world etc. So please delete this item as it is spreading wrong and one-sided information when using the world "fled to Canada", whatever the reason is, "fled" already shows the judgement of the editor here and this is not subjective description, but very objective description. We are from lifechanyuan and you raised the conflict of interest rule, so we cannot prove ourseles, but the edtion here definitely cannot represent what Lifechanyuan international family society is either. Please delete this edition to avoid the misunderstanding and mislead the public. Let them know, analysis, and judge by themselves, but not by you. Tongxincao (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment during the first listing there were two explicit votes, both keep, plus the nom. No other participation since then except for two SPA accounts affiliated with the article subject (one is on the AfD talk page). Reading the comments liberally, the SPA's initially voted for keep, then flipped to delete once the article was revised to reflect policy on secondary sources. SPA's aren't happy with the revised article as it doesn't tell the story as they want it told, but @Cunard and I have been trying to channel this to the talk page where I've accepted some of their proposed fact edits while holding the line on independent sourcing.@Discospinster are you still thinking the revised article is !delete? Are the comments by COI/SPA editors blocking consensus? What other shoe needs to drop? I feel like I'm being a WP:Bludgeon but the stream of complaints about how we're "misleading" the public by insisting on WP:RS is getting tiring. Oblivy (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely better in terms of sourcing, but if we're going to end up with content warring issue due to involved editors, I don't know if it should be "live" until some sort of consensus emerges on the talk page. If that makes any sense. ...discospinstertalk 14:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It does make sense, sort of. I just don't know what we're supposed to reach consensus over - the argument seems to be that secondary/independent sources mislead compared to primary/promo, and that just isn't going to reach a policy-based consensus.(Introvigne is actually quite sympathetic to the group but they still quibble). We don't usually delete articles over WP:IDONTLIKEIT.At this point it's been relisted, and the admins are doing their level best to keep things from piling up ATM so I don't want to make an issue over the relisting (although perhaps one more closed AfD could ease that burden!). I'm just hoping to distill down what the issues are so maybe we don't get to a 3rd relisting. Oblivy (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oblivy and other Editors of the article, thank you very much for your effort of making the article subjective and neutral，I apologize for the part that might offend you during the period, as I don't know about the rules here so it's very hard for us to understand the discussion. I can only share the facts and the truth as we have the record of our history, please kindly understand. We appreciate the openness that you showed and consider what we raise up here.
The article looks much neutral now, while there are some details still need to be corrected:
"They later moved to Hetan in Gansu."
-- In April 2009 Xuefeng came back from Zimbabwe, meet with near 2000 members in Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, then in May with around 30 members they moved to Kunming, Yunnan to establish the first Second Home community. There is not a "Henan" in Gansu, "Henan" and "Gansu" are both provinces of China.
"He took the name Xuefeng and started Lifechanyuan in 2005".
-- It was started in 2001, as he started writting the Chanyuan Corpus and Xuefeng Corpus in 2001 in Zimbabwe, when he posted his articles on the website of ”中国魂“ (Chinese Souls) and other Chinese website platforms. In 2004, with the help of one member who knows IT visited him in Zimbabwe, Lifechanyuan established its own website, and later moved to anther server in 2005.
"According to Chinese sources, the organization had about 2,000 members in 2021, of which about 100 were active."
-- The number of members temporarily reached to a peak of near 2000 in 2009, but after that many of them left( most of which joined because of family relations and did not understand well about the core of Lifechanyuan), so the latest number is around 400, of which around 200 is active.
And the last, "the office of society" is not in Vancouver, it is in Lac La Hache BC before we bought the new resort, and now it is in Anahim Lake, BC with an update on BC society website.
Thank you and I promise with my faith, I'm only telling the facts, did not exaggerate or reduce the facts.
Thank you again for your time, work and patience on this. Tongxincao (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oblivy, I agree that among non-COI editors there is a consensus that the subject meets the notability guideline since the sources have not been contested. These two relists have given the AfD's participants and the rest of the community more time to discuss evaluate the sources presented in the AfD. If no concerns are raised about the sources' independence, depth, and reliability after the additional time given by these relists, it strengthens the case for a "keep" close (though the closer could go with "no consensus" owing to the limited participation).
Oblivy (talk·contribs) has done admirable work in rewriting the article to be neutral and incorporating the feedback from a COI editor when the changes can be verified by independent reliable sources. Thank you again for your excellent work here.
Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted.
Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them.
To Oblivy, if reviewing feedback from COI editors becomes tedious or a burden, I recommend asking them to submit an edit request on the talk page so that another editor can review. That way, it doesn't become a time sink for you. See for example my response to Special:Contributions/Winmark update after I reverted their promotional edits. They started an edit request, which was declined by another editor for not being supported by reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 23:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, Soft deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles discuss the subject directly and in detail
✔Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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.
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 23:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, Soft deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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.
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 keep. To have the article renamed (there is still no consensus on that), a move discussion needs to be initiated. (non-admin closure)ToadetteEdit! 03:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The officer has never been notable. There was no coverage of him until his death. All coverage is related to his death and related trial. Biographical sources are essentially obituaries. No reporter is doing any serious investigation into his life before his last day, nor should they, since he was a private person. The trial has had lots of coverage, but we're not a news outlet. While tragic, its not historic. --Rob (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If he's not notable, well, I think his death is. No? What if the article's name is changed to "Death of Jeffrey Northrup"? - EclecticEnnui (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a name change of the article would be most fair. The relevant information could be retained while respecting the private life of officer Northrup. 142.126.191.237 (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds good. Should we wait and see if other users are gonna give their opinion? - EclecticEnnui (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. What was tragic was (a) Northrup's stupidity in getting killed, and (b) the fact that an innocent person had his life ruined for three years while the state tried to prove an unprovable case of first degree murder. This article should be deleted and a new one about this whole case created. --24.80.199.58 (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Crown v Umar Zameer, assuming the case was called that. Connor Behan (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. The story here is not the death of the officer, which is tragic, but the conduct of the Toronto Police Service (including possible collusion to commit perjury to lock away an innocent man), that has prompted an investigation. Coverage has gone far beyond the typical murder case. See [11][12][13]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename: The story is about police undercover procedures, police bias, conflicts between police officer testimony and expert testimony, weakness in the prosecution evidence and prosecutor bias. Perhaps the article title should be "Murder trial of Umar Zameer"; there are several Wikipedia articles prefixed by "Murder trial of". TheTrolleyPole (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine if somebody wishes to close this early as keep except for the article body, subject matter, and all of the original content which is the clear consensus above. I withdraw (I don't know how to close it myself). --Rob (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2024 (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.
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.
WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. This was previously deleted in 2019 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Ferrier and then got recreated in fall 2023 after his death, but this version is still referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all -- even the one footnote that's technically citing a newspaper is still just his paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds, not a journalist-written news story about his death, and virtually everything else is content self-published by companies or organizations he was directly affiliated with, while the one potentially acceptable source (LitLive) is not enough to clinch passage of GNG all by itself. And for notability claims, there are statements (a minor literary award, presidency of an organization) that might count for something if they were sourced properly, but there's still absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of proper WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. And the French interlang is based entirely on the same poor sourcing as this one, so it has no GNG-worthy footnotes that can be copied over to salvage this either. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The French language sources aren't poor, they're excellent. Passes GNG easily on this basis. Desertarun (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the English and French articles are based entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as "staff" profiles or press releases on the self-published websites of organizations and companies that he was directly affiliated with — only one source (LitLive) is GNG-worthy at all, and one GNG-worthy source isn't enough. People don't pass GNG just by using primary sources to verify facts, people pass GNG by showing third-party journalism and/or books that cover said facts as subjects of news and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has plenty of references so it seems like coverage is enough to pass notability guidelines. InDimensional (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passed notability in my eyes Sansbarry (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't a question of "your eyes", it's a question of whether the correct kind of sourcing is there or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "in my eyes" means in my opinion of whether or not the sourcing is good@BearcatMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out precisely which sources are "good", considering that they're pretty much all primary sources right across the board. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While every opinion after the deletion nomination has been a bolded 'keep', I am still not suitably persuaded. Further discourse regarding the 'quality' (in Wikipedia terms) of the French sources appears to be needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the article significantly using these sources and more. Jfire (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has reliable sources to prove its notability. It passes GNG. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 04:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NEVENT - none of the sources in the external links are still functional. It does not appear to be a notable event. Given the last AfD occurred in 2006 (result was no consensus) it is appropriate for the question of notability to be tested again. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the article history there appear to be a few single-purpose accounts attempting to restore the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Clearly an obscure, unremarkable event with no lasting consequences. TH1980 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Until recently this was a redirect to the relevant section of Saugeen–Maitland Hall, where there is a brief description on the incident. As long as that section remains (and I could certainly see it being removed for lack relevance) restoring the redirect seems to make the most sense. If that section should be removed, the redirect should then be deleted. -R. fiend (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:COMMONPLACE. When I lived in the dorms at a certain Big10 school noted for its basketball and swimming programs, girls stripping at alcohol fueled parties in the hall social room were more the norm than the exception. Granted this was 30 years later and in Canada, but college kids haven't changed much. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2024 (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.
WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books. But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc. -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions. Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia. (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of "Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024, so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.) PamD 11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.
And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her. And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability? As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations. PamD 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station. So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.
It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency, so they're still affiliated sources. The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, reluctantly. It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries. I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article. Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found. Curiocurio (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per PamD. This was not a person-picked-off-the-street interview. BD2412T 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown. Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not speculating, read your discussion above with PamD then made my decision. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG as well as the four criteria set down by WP:NARTIST. The nominator's report is spot on. After discarding the interviews and the primary sources, we're left with a non-existent case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of artists, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. And the extensive discussion is rather surprising for such an evidently straightforward issue. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why are you discarding the CBC interview? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the CBC feature, combined with the weight of what seem to be adequate sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What adequate sources? I see exactly one. Curiocurio (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the Guleph Today piece and CBC coverage, there is non-primary coverage. Whether aspects of the biography sourced to primary sources are wholly due as paragraphic body text or could be better rendered as a list of works/residences is a content question at the article level rather than an inclusion/deletion question at the encyclopedia level. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nicely done bio on the notability borderline. Don't we have more serious things to worry about? Carrite (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - most of the sources are primary, and not high-quality at that, as they are very promotional. She has very little reliable third-party coverage. Swordman97talk to me 03:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dozen warm-up edits then creation of a detailed article with mostly commercial non-archival references. Article has a cereal-filler claim to notability ("She is primarily known for her sculptural works which incorporate a variety of natural and industrial materials.") This looks like some kind of fan-page or COI. 2600:1700:8650:2C60:89EE:CBB:BDD3:F68E (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding any RS online to add to the article. She does exist as an author and artist but fails WP:Artist. WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
above people mentioned Guleph Today and CBC, both are RS FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned in a RS source does not indicate that the coverage contributes evidence of the subject's notability. I agree with other commenters that this falls short of WP:Artist, her importance in Maple Ridge, British Columbia notwithstanding. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All these guidelines that allow us to say "passed xyz standard", or "fails XYZ standard" is handy to have. But the fact of the matter is, we have articles like this one, where it should be obvious that this is an accomplished artist. Maybe she does/or doesn't exactly fit into the guidelines we so love to haul out for our assessment. Wikipedia has kept stubs and others with far less content and substance than this one. As far as I'm concerned, her article shows her qualifications to be here. We get carried away sometimes on one view or the other. I say she's notable as an artist, and I'm sticking to my perspective on it. — Maile (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll concur with Maile66. I see sufficient anchoring sourcing (Guleph Today and CBC) and plenty of less independent stuff (which may be used to detail the subject once NOTE is met, which I now assert). Given the usual dearth of direct detailing of visual artists in media, this sourcing is pretty good. BusterD (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Consensus is sourcing and claims are insufficient StarMississippi 03:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biography with no evidence of notability, but that has persisted for quite a while. Sadads (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to meet film notability, this [17] and a review [18] on a site I don't see listed as a RS over at Project Film [19]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Director of at least 2 apparently notable films that received coverage, so that WP:DIRECTOR is met in my view. Trimming the page seems necessary, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd truly like to know which of the WP:DIRECTOR criteria are met: (A) an important figure...widely cited by peers or successors Nope. (B) originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique None that we're aware of. (C) created -or played a major role in co-creating- a significant or well-known work There are 2 films directed by Roberge that have Wikipedia pages of their own but that does not mean that their director is worthy of an article himself. First of all, we need independent notability, and, segundo, the films might be Wikinotable but they are certainly not some "significant" work. And (D) [his] work has become a significant monument, been part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within permanent collections No, no, no, and no. -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 -- I don't see any of those criteria being met in my current reading of the article, Sadads (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, Marokwitz, above response to Mushy Yank that the criterion invoked clearly and explicitly does not hold. -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if this article is getting edited with a bot or an outside script rather than by a person doing normal edits. Please see the major contributor's talk page. I am wondering why he continues to add information, mark every edit as "minor" despite several warnings. This suggests script driven editing.Graywalls (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I totally agree with Mushy Yank. Although an underground producer and filmmaker - he is still well known in the film industry. See e.g. his IMDB profile. GidiD (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB can often be used as a source of information but not as proof of notability. IMDB offers, just like Wikipedia, audience-created content. What Wikipedia demands are not reputations but numerous, significant, independent, third-partysources. You are totally welcome to locate and post them up and make people change their minds. -The Gnome (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:IMDB is WP:UGC and generally trash and unacceptable as a reference. Graywalls (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are both right. Mea Culpa. GidiD (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Care to perhaps revisit, then, your above suggestion, GidiD? -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Watch this list, Please, if there is a good intention, a prior, help me integrate then into the article. מתיאל (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mars Roberge is an emerging voice and the l.a underground filmmaking scene, and also won some prizes and gained some good reviews and recognition Fabiorahamim (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See External links מתיאל (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
And also the two articles about his film with stating prizes and nominations. מתיאל (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there's still nothing about the director himself! And the "external links" section is irrelevant to notability. -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A list of further reliable sources will be uploaded to the talk page of the article tomorrow. If people will google him (And other artists) and also see the interview with him on Youtube and put the energy into that, instead of rushing to delete, Wikipedia will be a much better place. מתיאל (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Look here below. מתיאל (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Graywalls and The Gnome Priscilla256 (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I am shocked by the enthusiasm of some participants to delete an article about a real film director. Erasing artists is something typical of dictatorships, 1950s style. Have you seen his movies? Is a director who makes kitsch films and is more successful worthy of value? The high-quality and less popular director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for. Not for censorship or promoting kitschy pop. Nor does it matter the identity of the author of the entry and what his editing style is. Only relevant arguments. There are criteria for evaluating works of art and his films certainly meet them. For a better world, we need to create a community that promotes quality culture and deals with quality criteria. A community that acts for noble motives only! מתיאל (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
I find your comments sad and insulting. I reject your accusation of "enthusiasm" as a motivator for my opinion. This verges on a personal insult, because it is presented in tandem with your insinuations about me or others with whose suggestions you do not agree as supporters of "dictatorships." I'd greatly appreciate if you retract these personal attacks and concentrate on the discussion about the issues at hand.
As to your claim that this "director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for", I'm sorry but that is just your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not here to assign historical importance on the basis of personal opinions. I could actually agree with you about the person's importance! But personal opinions about notability do not matter in the slightest in Wikipedia. (I'm sure you're aware of this.) We need sources. Wikipedia clearly and explicitly does not aspire to be a "complete" encyclopaedia, such as Britannica, or other such. Wikipedia is written by the public, essentially, on the basis not of contributors' personal opinions or expertise but on the basis of third-party, independent, significant sources. "Noble motives" are what has brought all of us here to contribute but they're not the decider on notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't meant to offend anyone. I suggest that the people who are trying to delete him, will watch his movies before they decide. There are critics, and bloggers who are hardcore movie fans who liked his movies and wrote positive and detailed reviews about them, out of love for cinema and this is a sufficient indication. מתיאל (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Another thing, when people (not you) write nasty things to me on my page and act like bullies and work to remove an article about an artist who has proof of his successes, how should that be interpreted? There is a behavior of some users that is necessarily forceful. Why remove an entry on a film director? This is beyond my moral perception. מתיאל (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
The historical importance is not only my opinion, i have stated all the true cinema lovers. And Also, if we lose the criteria, then only "The market" and financial success will be the criteria, and this is a death sentence for art. מתיאל (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
See here below מתיאל (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: you are actually claiming that Wikipedia not having an article on this obscure filmmaker is a death sentence for art? Really? Seriously? Ravenswing 18:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My last piece of humble advice: For any personal attacks in your user talk-page or anywhere else, you should submit a complaint against the miscreants. This decreases the noise and helps the Wikipedia project. As to your suggestion that only those who have seen the subject's movies can have an opinion in this AfD, that's patently absurd and I hope that upon some further thinking, you'll see it too. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I file a complaint about him? About the other thing, doesn't it make sense that only film experts will write about movies and only music experts will write about Music etc? A list of further reliable sources will be uploaded to the talk page of the article tomorrow. מתיאל (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the offender has already deleted his bad slander. מתיאל (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It doesn't make sense, and Wikipedia has never worked that way. We do not kowtow before the authority of "experts" -- the more so in that so very many "experts" are self-proclaimed. WP:GNG plainly sets an objective standard that any editor with a modicum of experience can gauge, and that holds true for articles on athletes, on historical figures, on actors, and on filmmakers. Ravenswing 18:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
third-party, independent, significant sources!
Prosecution of artists is unacceptable!!! מתיאל (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל
You are again engaging in personal characterizations, calling editors "prosecutors"! Whatever the motive might be for such persistent behavior, it is unacceptable. You are already taking up too much of this discussion, so it's evidently advisable to step away, as I will do too, if I do not have to address some further input from you. -The Gnome (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
#1 is the artist's agent who's simply promoting their client. Come on! #2 is an entry in the list of all participants in a certain film festival. #3, #10, #12, #13, #22 are interviews, and we've already been through this; interviews are not, on their own, evidence of notability. #4 is a Netflix listing of every person under the sun connected, however remotely, to that streaming service. Same goes for #5, a MUBI listing; all we get from these listings is proof that the subject does exist and is indeed an artist. #6 looks like a joke but it's not; it's our subject's Rotten Tomatoes page, which reads, in its entirety : "Highest Rated: Not Available. Lowest Rated: Not Available. Birthday: Not Available. Birthplace: Not Available." What possessed you to include this I have no idea - it's actually evidence of non-notability.
#7 is a write-up by a fellow up-and-coming artist on his blog; not a source for notability. #8 is the IMDB entry and, per WP:NFILM, IMDb is not considered a reliable source for proving notability. #9 is a glowing write-up by our subject's sister. Do you truly count siblings as independent sources? #10 and #11 are yet more typical listings. #14 is a write-up by a "production services" company related to our subject. #15 is a review of Stars. #17 is yet another enthusiast's blog entry. #18 is one more listing/announcement. #19 is the same as #14. #20 is a review of Mister Sister. #21 is one more interview, this one of a bunch of people, among whom is our subject. #22, #23, and #24 are all YouTube interviews. Enough.
I am raging, this is not fair, especially about 7, so what, it is a good review, and what was written by his sisters?!? Youtube interview are media, it is not videos made by him. You can't pass up 15 and 17, they are legitimate film reviews by true film lovers. All I ask for is some fairness!!! מתיאל (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
You openly dispute the premise of accepting the good will of your fellow contributors. Then you admit you are raging. And you continue to invoke not just flocks of meaningless links as "sources," ignoring the reasons they cannot be such (e.g. blogs are not, on their own), but "arguments" specifically unacceptable in AfD discussions, e.g. "The quality of his work is enough for an article", "It benefits Wikipedia", "He is popular", "What's the harm in having this article?", etc. I will suggest one final time we both vacate the space here and allow input from other editors. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some blogs are legitimate, Some wikipedia's policies are wrong. i added much more reliable sources. Help me, instead of being against me or the article. מתיאל (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
You're welcome to disagree with Wikipedia policies, and you're welcome to try to get them changed, but until and unless you do so, you need to abide by them. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm raging for the lack of goodwill. Logical מתיאל (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People, not you, can't use psychological violence and that complain about "Uncivilized reactions" מתיאל (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please address sources 29 until 25 מתיאל (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Large slab of mostly unhelpful text
Assuming goodwill
Sorry, as a community we must help each other and not fail each other. I get a lot of hard time here, instead of helping. מתיאל (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Help me, i feel like i'm in noval from Kafkaמתיאל (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Further sources
"24th Annual Dances With Films Festival by Robin Menken". www.filmfestivals.com. Retrieved 2021-11-25.
"Mister Sister | Film | Winter Film Awards International Film Festival". 2021-07-25. Retrieved 2021-10-24.
Grobar, Matt (2021-08-24). "L.A.'s Dances With Films Unveils Lineup, Sets Paul Greengrass & Michael London As Speakers For Inaugural First Films Series". Deadline. Retrieved 2021-10-25.
Wild, Stephi. "NYC's Winter Film Awards International Film Festival Returns For 10th Annual Celebration Of Indie Film". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2021-11-25.
Weekend, No Rest for the (2021-08-02). "Winter Film Awards International Film Festival Returns for 10th Annual Celebration of Indie Film…". Medium. Retrieved 2021-11-25.
"MISTER SISTER | Dances With Films". Retrieved 2021-10-24.
Rabinowitz, Chloe. "MISTER SISTER Screens At The Winter Film Awards In NYC". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2021-10-25.
"Mister Sister Pictures and Photos - Getty Images". www.gettyimages.in. Retrieved 2021-11-25.
Hipes, Patrick (2021-07-23). "L.A.'s Dances With Films Returning With Expanded In-Person Festival; 'The Art Of Protest' Opening-Night Film". Deadline. Retrieved 2021-11-25.
"Mister Sister – suicidal straight guy finds love within NYC's drag community". TheBUZZ Magazine. 2021-10-06. Retrieved 2021-11-25.
"Drag Queens, Chinese Food, A Nun, NYC, "Mister Sister" Film Premieres at Dances with Films Festival (dir. Mars Roberge)". The WOW Report. 2021-07-29. Retrieved 2021-11-25.
Chat with Massively talented Mars Roberge. DJ, Artist, Screenwriter, Editor, Award winning Filmmaker, retrieved 2021-12-22
"Rise NYC: Rock 'n' Roll Manifesto (Remix by Genesis Breyer P-Orridge)". Destroy//Exist. 11 August 2021. Retrieved 2021-10-25.
"'MISTER SISTER' Film review. Director Mars Roberge delivers another heavenly splash of back alley Americana". OriginalRock.net. 2021-10-06. Retrieved 2021-11-25.
Dina (16 August 2021). "Mister Sister 2020 | MyIndie Productions". Retrieved 2021-11-25.
"Mister Sister". Film Threat. 2021-09-23. Retrieved 2021-11-25.
"WFA 2021 Nominees & Winners | Winter Film Awards International Film Festival". 2021-10-04. Retrieved 2021-10-25.
"Scumbag | IFFR". iffr.com. Retrieved 2021-10-24.
Dunn, Bryen (9 February 2017). "Die J! Mars is bringing his latest film, "Scumbag", to Queens for the North American premiere". Absolution.
"Interview with MARS ROBERGE". DMME. Retrieved 6 September 2018.
"2017 JURY HONORS". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 6 September 2018.
"Patricia Field Documentarian Has A New Film "ScumBag"". The WOW Report. 6 December 2014. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
- "Scumbag". SugarBuzz. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
""A Day in the Life" with local Toronto filmmaker Mars Roberge". Toronto Guardian. 16 May 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018.
"Mars Roberge - Scumbag". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
"Household Filmmaking - Interview With Scumbag Director Mars Roberge", Youtube, 25 September 2018, retrieved 26 September 2018
"NFMLA 1/2015 MovieMaker Magazine Interview with Dir. Mars Roberge", Youtube, 7 April 2015, retrieved 5 September 2018
"Cult Film "SCUMBAG" (dir. Mars Roberge)". Zeitgeist World. Retrieved 6 September 2018.
- Karmiya Nicola Interviews Mars Roberge on Scumbag, retrieved 6 September 2018
"Celebrity Interview - Mars Roberge". BlogTalkRadio. Retrieved 6 September 2018.
My Gay Toronto (26 April 2017), Scumbag Comes To Canada, retrieved 6 September 2018
Bellini, Paul. "Scumbag" (PDF). TheBuzzmag.
- "Scumbag Interview Brainwashed Radio KCLA99.3FM 09.29.16", SoundCloud, retrieved 5 September 2018
- "scumbagthemovie". Instagram. Archived from the original on 2021-12-26. Retrieved 27 September 2018.
"KATIE CHATS: MARS ROBERGE, FILMMAKER, THE LITTLE HOUSE THAT COULD", Youtube, 24 March 2013, retrieved 27 September 2018
"Mars Roberge". Punk Globe. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
"Queens World Film Festival's 2017 Line-Up". Queens Gazette. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
- "Queens World Film Festival Unveils Diverse Lineup". Queens Tribune. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
Dina. "Scumbag: Written Review". MyIndie Productions. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
"'Scumbag': A movie for anyone who has ever hated their job & would do anything not to be there". DangerousMinds. 31 July 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
"Scumbag". SugarBuzz. Retrieved 27 September 2018.
"Scumbag". Punk Globe. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
"Mars Roberge over Scumbag - IFFR 2017: de mafste film van het festival". VPRO (in Dutch). Retrieved 5 September 2018.
""SCUMBAG", THE DARK COMEDY BY MARS ROBERGE FT. IN INDIEGOGO". FBF. 27 December 2014. Retrieved 6 September 2018.
"Mars Roberge". www.punkglobe.com. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
- ""Scumbag" The Movie by Mars Roberge". Rank and Revue. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
Christopher Moonlight Productions (25 September 2018), "Household Filmmaking - Interview With Scumbag Director Mars Roberge", Youtube, retrieved 27 September 2018
"Mars Roberge over Scumbag The Movie". Gonzo (circus) (in Dutch). Retrieved 6 September 2018.
Finnie, Nikki. "Mars Roberge and his movie 'Scumbag'". The Punk Lounge. Retrieved 6 September 2018.
"Mars Roberge - Director of Scumbag", Youtube, 11 June 2016, retrieved 5 September 2018
"Kate Hudson Gushes Over BF Danny Fujikawa: 5 Things to Know About Him!". Us Weekly. 11 May 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018.
Ciccarelli, Stephanie (14 May 2009). "Voice Over Contracts | Growing Your Business - Getting The Gig". Voices.com Blog. Retrieved 6 September 2018.
"Linda Lamb - Scumbag #IFFR2017". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
- "Camille Waldorf - Scumbag #IFFR2017". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
BWW News Desk. "Austin Pendleton, Charles Busch and More Set For Theater for the New City's LOWER EAST SIDE FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2020-05-28.
Scumbag, "Scumbag" U.K. Premiere Q & A w/ Ryan Beard, retrieved 2018-12-20
"Mars Roberge's autonomous SCUMBAG movie is now available to watch in Europe". OriginalRock.net. 2021-12-01. Retrieved 2021-12-02.
"Scumbag (2017)". Cinema Crazed. Retrieved 6 September 2018.
"Recensies; boekrecensies, filmrecensies, muziekrecensies, theaterrecensies". www.derecensent.nl. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
"Inside Mars Roberge's 'Scumbag'". Review Fix. 28 April 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018.
"#MustSee: Cult Film "SCUMBAG" (dir. Mars Roberge)". The WOW Report. 23 April 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
"沒有最怪，只有見怪不怪 ！獨立電影的天堂：荷蘭 IFFR 鹿特丹影展". POLYSH (in Chinese (Taiwan)). 18 February 2017. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
"15 Best Things to Do in L.A. This Week". LA Weekly. 29 March 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
"Scumbag". Film Threat. 4 April 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
Finnie, Nikki. "Mars Roberge and his movie 'Scumbag'". The Punk Lounge. Retrieved 27 September 2018.
"Club Kid, Superstar DJ Keoki, Arrested and Under Investigation". The BUZZ. 19 January 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
"2017 JURY HONORS". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
"Sex, Drugs, And Telemarketing – A Look At Mars Roberge's SCUMBAG". BWW News. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
Dunn, Bryen (9 February 2017). "Die J! Mars is bringing his latest film, "Scumbag", to Queens for the North American premiere". Absolution.
"Interview with MARS ROBERGE". DMME. Retrieved 6 September 2018.
"2017 JURY HONORS". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 6 September 2018.
Stop! Just stop. This is pure bludgeoning! You admitted you are posting in a state of rage. Have pity on us and stop. -The Gnome (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But my claims are rightful. From now on i will post only sources. מתיאל (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Why aren't you answering? מתיאל (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Having emotions is not a crime מתיאל (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Delete A lot of blugeoning here on a article for some reason, perhaps indicative at best of being non-notable. Closest to notability is WP:NDIRECTOR but I don't think he passes the criteria. The rest, bit part actor, writer somewhat (nothing notable), producer, nothing stands out. I think it is fail on WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are completely unreliable. The director is not the focus of them. It is trite that IMDB entries do not establish notability. And being the director of a couple of barely notable indie films does not make the director independently notable. Local Variable (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete bludgeoning aside, I think this person barely doesn't meet GNG, from counting the WP:THREE best sources above. He's close, but not quite. BrigadierG (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Add me to the list of editors raising a serious eyebrow at the bludgeoning. Whether or not you like Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding notability and the requirement for "significant coverage" of the subject (not his works) in multiple, reliable, independent sources is not an issue for this AfD. Those are the policies and guidelines in place, honed over twenty years of debate and struggle, and that's what we use to determine notability. The subject here does not meet those standards. Ravenswing 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose there could in theory be some evidence of notability in that massive link dump above, but there isn't enough in the article as it stands. Even if deleted, article could be improved as a draft, and then re-added. Deletion isn't necessarily forever. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 17:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG. If you look at the articles for his films Scumbag and Mister Sister, those too are questionable, thus diluting these films as a basis for notability. Although I haven't done a thorough check on those films Graywalls (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. I hope מתיאל can find a way past the "psychological violence" of this !vote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 03:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sourced bio for non notable artist. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor can rewrite the article based on newly discovered references to reliable, independent sources that devote enough significant coverage to this artist showing that they meet WP:ARTIST. The "Artist's statement" section is of no value, because an acceptable Wikipedia article about an artist summarizes what sources independent of the artist say, not what the artist says about themself. The "Overview" section is unreferenced, banal and uninformative. The "Exhibitions" section is entirely unreferenced, and is therefore of no value in establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 03:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear this business is notable. The article seems to have been created as an advertisement for it. -- Beland (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: News articles I find are just PR items, what's used in the article now are pretty much of the same quality. Nothing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree, can only find press releases, and companies that put every damn listicle they're mentioned in in their Wikipedia article grind my gears. BrigadierG (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2024 (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.
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.
As a Soft Deletion, this article could be restored if this absent chessplayer ever pops back up on the competitive chess radar. LizRead!Talk! 01:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. The sources in the article are all databases, and a WP:BEFORE check only comes up with passing mentions such as [[20]]. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notes. Not voting one way or the other at this stage, just noting that he represented a large country (Canada) at chess, and most of his activity was in the 1960s where sources are not so easy to find on the internet. He played in 3 Canadian Championships. His Elo rating on the first FIDE list in 1970 was 2260, and it seems he didn't play any rated games after that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several mentions of him in the Chess Life/ Chess Review archives at the USCF site (https://new.uschess.org/chess-life-digital-archives), usually in connection with either the Canadian championship or the annual Minnesota vs Manitoba match (he was one of the top players from Winnipeg). I haven't found any 1960s Canadian chess publications digitized on-line. Still, he satisfies two of the informal WP:NCHESS criteria, having played in 3 Canadian championships (1963, 1965, 1969) and represented Canada at the Olympiad. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete. I wanted to keep it, I really did, but in the end I couldn't justify it to myself. It's true that there are probably a lot of off-line sources from the 1960s, but he just doesn't really have enough achievements to get more than a few passing mentions in specialist chess publications. We haven't even confirmed a date of birth or death (chesstempo says he was born in 1934 but no better source found; a memorial tournament named after him was held in 2018). Playing in 3 Canadian championship (https://www.bcchesshistory.com/canchslate.html) and 1 Olympiad (https://www.olimpbase.org/players-ind/2/28e2amqe.html) doesn't really add up to notability since Canada has never been a major chess playing power, and his achievements in these events was a little underwhelming. His published FIDE rating of 2260, while not to be sneezed at, suggests that he was of below International Master strength. It appears he was strictly an amateur, a lawyer who only occasionally found the time to play competitively. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCHESS doesn't mention playing in a national championship, it mentions winning a national championship. And it doesn't mention playing in the Olympiad, it mentions earning a ... medal at an Olympiad. So, I don't think we can rescue this article. That said, I enjoyed learning these little tidbits about a Canadian chess player whom I had not otherwise heard of. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted elsewhere I found a DOB for him in the Chess Federation of Canada's 100th anniversary booklet by Daniel Yanofsky. I'll note here that he disappeared from the FIDE rating list on the January 2008 list, after being present in the October 2007 list, indicating a likely death in 2007. I've found references to a Winnipeg lawyer who is probably this person, but no obituary (he has a namesake from Maryland who also died in 2007, and another namesake who was P!nk's drummer). The lack of an online obituary does not bode well for notability. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2024 (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.
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 keep. ✗plicit 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only 2 articles link to this. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Sources confirm he's been a CEO but lacking WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a simple Proquest search for ""Bernard Mariette" yields a lot of international results over the last two decades. Was there a WP:BEFORE? Nfitz (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how many of these are WP:SIGCOV? I see a number of routine company announcements. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there's some like that - perhaps even a majority! But look deeper. Where did you search during the BEFORE? What's wrong with the references C&A highlights below? Nfitz (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please give actual examples of sources that are indepth and satisfy WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Plenty of significant coverage found in Newsbank also. Many of the hits are low quality PR, but there are more than enough that aren't. E.g. "Quiksilver Retrenches Its Top Leadership February 12, 2008 LA Times," "Downhill Run March 19. 2010 The Deal," and "Trouble in the tube April 3, 2010 The Age". The LA Times piece is already used in the article, but the others aren't. Therefore meets GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with above editors. Enough news coverage exists to keep this one. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (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.
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.
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Sources are just a couple routine local notices plus coverage on a couple criminal charges against associated individuals North8000 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, North8000. I think the Christian Credit Union in Edmonton probably meets notability; however this is not well demonstrated in the current stub. I think the bank will meet notability because of its strong cultural connection to Edmonton's Dutch community. It is where the vast majority of Edmonton's Dutch community has banked for almost 75 years and the bank has hosted and sponsored a range of cultural events in the city. I am happy to continue working on it in Mainspace, or someone can move it back to draftspace where I will attempt to demonstrate this. Tracklan2 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tracklan2: Cool. From a Wikip[edia standpoint that requires finding and including an independent (of the credit union) source or 2 that covers them in depth. For example, a Dutch community source that does that. If you could do that in 1-2 weeks we could settle this right here as a "keep". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just expanded the article a bit and added a handful of citations Tracklan2 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that's a lot of references over decades - including National - here's a better link for the National Post article, for Wikipedia editors. Nfitz (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Am I allowed to vote keep even though I'm the one who wrote it? The Christian Courier articles from 2002 are independent of the bank and discuss its history and mission/vision in depth. I agree with Nfitz that the national coverage and ongoing coverage across decades and publications is significant. Tracklan2 (talk) 4:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you are allowed. (although we don't call it a vote :-) ) North8000 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of the nominator on whether recent additions assuage their concerns. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/withdraw Creator has made many source additions including a rock-solid-GNG source (which looks like it was hard to find). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2024 (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.
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.
Completely unsourced article about a smalltown sports facility. As always, sports venues are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, but this cites no sources at all and has been tagged as such since 2012. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Berian (below). Should have done that myself. Meters (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect. I have smerged images and a small amount of text into the main article Kincardine, Ontario. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:23, 19 April 2024 (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.
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 no consensus / weak keep. We have reasonable disssension on WGM v GM as well as whether the volume of sourcing is sufficient. A consensus to delete this article isn't going to emerge, but nor is a strong consensus for retention. StarMississippi 01:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Person had no notability. Sources of dubious quality. Only one other source could be found, and it alone could not be enough to build an article upon. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV is present here or elsewhere for this subject to meet the GNG. The sources are either primary, unreliable, or in the case of the NYT is a brief mention. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I think it was bad form to nominate this article for an AFD discussion less than an hour after the article was created. That's not enough time to create an article that could withstand scrutiny at an AFD. I'd also like to see some assessment of newly added content since its nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV. Passing mentions such as those in the NYT and The Globe and Mail do not contribute to notability, nor do non-independent primary sources like FIDE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Burtasova does hold the title of Woman grandmaster, perhaps there is someone move familiar with WP:NCHESS who can comment on notability requirements for chess players beyond WP:GNG. I realize this is not a delete/keep statement, but just a thought. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets WP:NCHESS criteria #1 and #6. Respectively, Burtasova is a chess grandmaster, and has contributed to the development of chess in Canada.[1] -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is tantamount to claiming that the title of a champion for women's title is a lesser title than for men's tennis. (Yes, I'm intentionally alluding to the ridiculous episode involving poor John McEnroe.) Wikipedia does not consider the title of WGM in women to be any less worthy than the same title in me. Having separate tournaments and championships for men and women (not a universal separation, by the way) does not mean one is "lesser" (sic) than the other. -The Gnome (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the WGM title *is* inferior to the GM title. It is far easier to get than the GM title, easier even than the IM title. I don't know by what authority you proclaim what "Wikipedia" does or does not "consider", but the claim that the titles are equivalent is just plain incorrect. Women are entitled to enter open tournaments, compete against men, obtain "men's" titles and compete in the "men's section" at chess Olympiads, and play in "men's" championships. Women who are strong enough (i.e. most of the world's top 20 woman players) hold the full GM title. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously do not understand what I'm saying, MaxBrowne2. I am not saying that the ELOarithmetic average of Women GM is equal to Men GM. No, it's not even close. There's about a hundred ELO points difference on average. What I am saying is that Wikipedia does not assign any difference between men and women grandmasters as far as notability is concerned! And if you have a different opinion, please point out the pertinent guideline to set me straight. Which is why I'm telling you that your claim ("Woman Grandmaster is a lesser title than Grandmaster") makes no sense in this context. This is not a chess discussion; this is a discussion about deleting or not an article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ELO is a rock band, not a rating system. I do understand what you're saying, and I disagree completely. There is no such title as "Men GM", only GM, which is open to all players who meet the standard, including 41 women to date. There is no "men" anything in chess, men don't have segregated tournaments or titles. GMs are pretty much always notable. IMs don't always make the cut, and neither do WGMs. Often, but not always. WGMs are not Grandmasters, only the 41 women who have actually gained the GM title are. And again what qualifies you to make proclamations on behalf of "Wikipedia", and what "Wikipedia" does or does not "consider" or "assign a difference" to? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not understand the ELO rating system in chess, I, in turn, cannot understand how you offer opinions about elementary issues of the game such as what kind of title is a grandmaster. But, perhaps, or hopefully, you're joking ha ha. In any case, Wikipedia does not place WGMs lower in any way, shape, or form lower than GMs. You invoke WP:NCHESS without understanding it! I already challenged you and I repeat the challenge: Find me in WPedia a rule, a policy, or a guideline that prohibits using the title of Women GM as evidence of notability. Simple task. Otherwise, you're making stuff up. -The Gnome (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that you understand nothing of which you write. Concerning WP:CHESS:
Even a cursory examination of this thread will show that *you* invoked WP:NCHESS, not me.
I was around when we drafted that guide and had some hand in it
It was never intended to be invoked as policy, or even a guideline, only as a rough guide to whether or not a player might be considered notable. It is not a good link to use in a deletion discussion.
In the context "Grandmaster" clearly refers to the GM title, not the WGM title, and it is absurd to insist otherwise.
And for Christ's sake stop professing to speak on behalf of "Wikipedia" and making pompous pronouncements on what "Wikipedia" thinks about any topic. "Wikipedia" is not a sentient being and has no opinions on anything.
What Wikipedia does have are policies and guidelines that have been established by consensus. There is clearly no policy or guideline that says that no distinction should be made between the GM and WGM titles when assessing notability, since one is clearly a superior title to the other.
I am going to disengage here on a "never argue with an idiot" basis. I seriously question your competence to edit chess articles or participate in chess-related deletion discussions. I did not start this unpleasantness, I was just offering clarification that the "Grandmaster" in criterion 1 of WP:NCHESS does not refer to WGMs, but you chose to respond with an aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, which you then doubled down on with WP:IDHT obtuseness. If you don't understand by now that criterion 1 of WP:NCHESS does not include WGMs then you never will. After all you don't even know the difference between a Hungarian surname and a seventies British rock band, yet you presume to make pronouncements on behalf of "Wikipedia"! MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the comments above? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Also have this article [21] about this person. I think we have just enough to squeak past notability. This interview on CBC just a few days ago [22], while not about her confirms basic details, and this other story about her hired by a Toronto club [23]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Oaktree's references. That's two different articles in the nation's biggest national paper - plus the local foreign one in a New York city paper. Nfitz (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Nfitz notes, the sources Oaktree b found, from independent periodicals, provide the coverage in independent reliable sources that WP:GNG guides us to find. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing to do with WP:NCHESS which holds no status on Wikipedia, or her title (which is *not* equivalent to a full Grandmaster title), but because there are sufficient sources to establish notability. Further sources can be found in the Russian and German Wikipedia pages and could be incorporated into the article. For example the information that she graduated with a law degree from Vladimir University. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have three local sources and one brief mention. That doesn't add up to WP:BIO. The title of grandmaster (putting aside the separate WGM title) may have been an indicator of notability years ago when there were only a handful issued each year, but there are thousands now. NCHESS would never find consensus to be promoted to an actual notability guideline in part for that reason. Stopping short of !voting delete because it sure seems like the only chess player AfDs I see are of women players -- we could use a notability audit of our articles on the men, too. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The value of the Chess Grandmaster title has been inflated many decades ago and not in recent times. I distinctly remember reading about this issue many decades ago. Tournaments with GMs participating are more appealing. In any case, if you, Rhododendrites, or others, believe changes are in order to WP:NCHESS, then I'm sure you're aware that AfD discussions are not the place for that. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. Nchess is irrelevant as far as afd is concerned. If you believe it should be turned into a notability guideline that can serve as the basis for afd arguments, afd is not the place for that either. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:22, 2 May 2024 (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.
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 keep. While it could be argued that this discussion should be closed as No consensus I find the new accounts who popped up to argue for Deletion more than a little suspicious. AFD is not a place that new editors find on their first few days editing. Plus those editors arguing to Keep this article are AFD regulars I trust. LizRead!Talk! 06:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noting that this account has only been registered for an hour and their only edits have been to start this AFD. No editing on any other Wikimedia projects either so I'm not sure how they know policy abbreviations. LizRead!Talk! 01:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's not about her well known role, but the fact that all the cited sources in this page aren't considered reliable, as per the Wikipedia's reliable sources list:
I'm ok if it gets !deleted as well, I didn't see coverage that I'd use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so, would you please recommend deletion for this article in this talk page. For some reason, this AFD hasn't produced much discussion as of yet and I'm not sure how Wikipedia will deal with such nomination whose discussion page doesn't even have one recommendation. Raqib Sheikh (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources or coverages to build an article. Izzac Leiberheir (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Izzac Leiberheir, you barely joined here in less than six days, and after two edits here, you jumped to deletion. Hmmm, is there anything we don't know here? — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 02:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have also looked into the article and I frankly agree with the nomination. Couldn't find a single reference from a reliable source. Ashik Rahik (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most of the sources if not all were based on a notable film. I was also thinking of the nominations when WP:ACTOR said, "multiple and lead roles". I became skeptic if her roles in the films other than Heartland (inclusively too). But the film.is notable and she was much credited for it. I have no other option that this meets notability guidelines.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Theroadislong (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong, appearing in multiple films without verifiability doesn't meet notability. Besides, almost all the sources were centralized to reviews or mention of her on the film, Heartland and remember, that isn't significant coverages. While Wikipedia is not perfect, redirect seems to work here per her acting non or less lead roles. Unless the article has been covered for playing a particular role in two or more films (considered notable per WP:NFILM), it should be kept, if not —redirect per WP:ATD. — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus currently seems split between redirect and delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources here look good enough. And here's another one from a major newspaper in 2013. A decade of media coverage! And really, 10 seasons in a major national TV series - I'm not sure why we are here. Nfitz (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the sources are reliable? Because they don't seem reliable to me, as per Wikipedia's reliable source list: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia. None of the cited sources within the article are on the list. And as per my knowledge about Wikipedia, when an article does not have reliable sources as references, which is when some or at least one these sources is not cited, then there's a big reason to delete the article. Raqib Sheikh (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really suggesting, User:Raqib Sheikh that a 120-year old Postmedia broadsheet is not a reliable source? That list came about to document bad sources. The Toronto Star - the largest newspaper in the nation, and the paper of record in Toronto isn't there as well. Neither is The Gazette - the largest English-language paper in Quebec. Would you discount those? Their lack of presence on that list simply indicates no one has ever felt a need to question it! Nfitz (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2024 (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.
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 no consensus. LizRead!Talk! 10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how a bunch of news announcments make a subject notable. Keep? Look at the state of this? Almost everything is unsourced. Tells you the low-quality state of Wikipedia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found [26], [27], and [28], which may help determine notabilty. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:14, 29 April 2024 (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.
