- Affirming Pentecostal Church International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no reliable, independate, relevant, or recent sources on this organization. Even the website of the organization itself does not have any organizational information on it. It definitely does not pass the WP:Notability or WP:Verifiability tests. JParksT2023 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Better Days (Robbie Seay Band album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Give Yourself Away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Robbie Seay Band Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Articles about albums, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NALBUMS. As usual, Wikipedia's approach to albums used to extend an automatic presumption of notability to any album that was recorded by a notable artist regardless of sourcing or the lack thereof, in the name of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been deprecated, and an album now has to have a meaningful notability claim (chart success, notable music awards, a significant volume of coverage and analysis about it, etc.) and WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it.
But none of these three albums are making any notability claim above and beyond "this is an album that exists", two of the three are completely unreferenced, and the one that does have references doesn't have good ones: it's citing one review in an unreliable source, and one "Billboard chart history" that lists no actual chart positions and is present only to footnote a release date that it doesn't actually support rather than any charting claims.
As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much more expertise in Christian music than I've got can find the right kind of sourcing to salvage them, but simply existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt an album from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Lilia Tarawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP1E only notable in regards to Gloriavale. Most of the stuff not in regards to Gloriavale are from promotional pieces and Tarawa herself. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Most of the sources are neither reliable nor independent. They are full of primary sources written by the subject or from unreliable blogs. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's enough here to show GNG. She's written a book that Martin van Beynen has called "bestselling". It created a lot of publicity, for example, John Campbell interviewed her for 10 min on Radio New Zealand. She gets keynote speaking slots and, whilst that's nothing unusual, it is unusual when Stuff reports on that. She's been invited to give a talk at TEDxChristchurch and it takes quite something to get invited to TEDx. The pieces by Kurt Bayer (NZHerald; based in Christchurch), Eleanor Black (Stuff), and Now to Love (which belongs to Are Media) go into plenty enough depth to fulfil the criteria of three independent reliable sources. And all those sources are in the article already. All up, that's an easy keep. Schwede66 04:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Waikato Times piece is a promotional piece for the business awards. The Now to Love piece is just her interview with Women's Daily. The other Stuff piece is also a promotional piece.
- This is the same for most of the refs, they're either promo pieces or interviews about Gloriavale. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of media coverage from reliable outlets here to establish GNG. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a lot of media coverage but it is promotional/non-independent.
- Refs 1-4 are Tarawa herself, they shouldn't be used in the article except in limited aboutself uses, let alone go to notability.
- Ref 5, supplied piece from the festival she appeared at.
- Ref 6, women's day interview
- Ref 7 is about Cooper's conviction and just drops a promotion for her book in it... which is odd. Bit of coverage here but not much and it is still in relation to Gloriavale.
- Ref 8 same coverage but more blatantly promotional this time
- Refs 9 and 10 have the exact same wording as refs 7 and 8 which makes me believe this is some promotional thing sent out to papers, that or they just simply copied the Herald, either way the refs adds nothing to notability.
- Ref 11 is a promotional piece.
- Ref 12 is a promotional interview
- Ref 13 is an interview
- Ref 14 is another interview that involves promoting the book
- Refs 15-16 are reprints of Herald refs mentioned earlier
- Ref 17 uses same wording as the other promotional pieces
- Ref 18 is a promotional interview
- Ref 19 is a promotional interview from women's day and the same ref as 6.
- Ref 20 isn't promotional or an interview but very brief coverage (3 lines) as part of her grandfather's death
- Ref 21 is an interview
- Ref 22 is from Tarawa herself
- Ref 23 is a promotional piece for the Matamata business awards
- Ref 24 is a broken url but it is a very brief interview
- Refs 25-27 are interviews
- Ref 28 is promotional
- Ref 29 opinion piece and it provides little coverage anyhow
- Ref 30 is brief coverage of the book
- Ref 31 is dead but appears to be a blog from an unreliable source
- Ref 32 is about someone else's death
- Ref 33 is the exact same as ref 32.
- Ref 34 is the same as 9, 9 is presumably a reprint of it. Contains the exact same sentences used in the other promotional pieces
- Ref 35 is about Gloriavale but suddenly just drops in the same promotional content about Tarawa's book seen before.
- Ref 36 is a radio interview, not even an RS.
- Ref 37 is a podcast interview.
- Ref 38 is a promotional piece for some event she was invited to
- Ref 39 is another piece on Gloriavale that just suddenly includes the same promotional content as else where, it is really odd and I cannot see a reason for it other than being sponsored/paid for it
- So yes, there is a lot of media coverage, but little of it is independent, most of it is from the same source, and plenty of it is promotional. The fact that two identical articles are used as a reference right after each other just looks like COI/Paid editing with refbombing so it looks notable. The user who wrote most of this article is now blocked for copyvios but from looking at his contributions I think he may have been a paid editor. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Herbert Daughtry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his daughter or his protege. Reliable sources appear to only have passing mentions of him. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nosral Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NCORP fail Potential merge target Rottweiler Records too appears to be NCORP fail. Graywalls (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Wisconsin. Graywalls (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete same issues as with Rottweiler Records, the sources all check out, I’ll accept the source as a reliable one, but there isn’t enough extended coverage of the company itself to pass NCORP
- Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. At worst, a merge to Rottweiler, which ought to be kept too, so ultimately this is a moot conversation, but it looks like this sublabel has enough of a roster and press coverage to pass muster on its own. I'm agnostic as to whether these label articles continue on as one or two separate articles, so long as the content is preserved. Chubbles (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Which three sources do you believe would satisfy NCORP for this article @Chubbles: ? Graywalls (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Rottweiler Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NCORP fail Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indiana. Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fairly clearly meets the sense of an important label as given in the WP:MUSIC guideline, and the article has citations indicating the label gets regular coverage in music press. Chubbles (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I’d love to agree with you, because they seem really interesting, but… NCORP not NMUSIC is the right standard to judge them on, and everything I can see in the article is either passing coverage, or basic business process (the sale to new owners) coverage… but nothing giving any sort of extended coverage of the company itself. It’s all “band x signs to Rottweiler Records” and then a ton about band x, but nothing about the company. So weirdly they would count for the band’s notability, but not the company’s. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Helaman Jeffs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of standalone notability. Hardly any coverage of the subject; notability is not inherited. (NPP action) C F A 💬 20:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple references (already found on the article) are stating that he is claiming to be the current head of the FLDS church, I will hunt down some more sources. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't really matter. There needs be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources in order to meet WP:NBASIC. C F A 💬 14:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- St. Vincent's Home for the Aged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails NORG. The article contains WP:OR and appears promotional. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- L'Opus Dei: enquête sur le "monstre" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only usable source here is La Libre, which is not sigcov and is not enough. Found 1 other journal source that looks good (though I question its independence). Redirect to author Patrice de Plunkett? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There seem to be a number of reviews and coverage in French, until we can say otherwise I think we can assume that there is enough coverage outside the english language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Horse Eye's Back No reliable, significant ones to my awareness. None found in a search of French media sources either. Every French source used here is a blog, or passing mention. Or has no independence from the Opus Dei, which obviously has a COI here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For context, the sources used inline are linking to the ones in the further reading. These sources are four interviews with blogs, all affiliated with Da Vinci Code conspiracies or the Opus Dei, and the brief La Libre mention. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There doesn't seem to be any coverage in French... I tried the title with "critique" or "revue critique"... you can get a thousand places to buy it, see where it's held in libraries... This was all I could find that even mentions it [3]... The subject of Ops Dei is mentioned here, but not specifically about the book [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b For future reference the word usually used for (well, some, typically academic reviews) book reviews in French is compte rendu. There is one review I found while searching that phrase but I think it's from an Opus Dei affiliated publication so questionable independence. Even if its not, it's only one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the correction... I'm not using my French as much as I should, it gets jumbled with the English in my head. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Recommended reading here [5], but there isn't much coverage of the book. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thoughts on a redirect? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose we could redirect to the author, his name comes up enough in searches. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]