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. Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gennady Tkachenko-Papizh

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Gennady Tkachenko-Papizh

Singer who does not appear to satisfy musical notability or general notability. There are two references. The first one is paywalled, but is assumed to be independent and secondary. The second one is a puff piece that cannot qualify as secondary coverage and probably is not independent. So there is only one valid reference, and none of the musical criteria are satisfied.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/arts/music/gennady-tkachenko-papizh-georgias-got-talent.html	Have not viewed, but assumed to be independent and significant	Yes?	Maybe	Yes	Yes?
2	https://www.amnestyindia.org/gennady-tkachenko-magic-miracle-ufo-marvell-music-space-age-music/	A puff piece	No?	Yes	No	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, India, and United Kingdom. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britain's Got Talent per WP:REALITYSINGER. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was in Georgia's Got Talent, I've read the NYT piece and it is significant content directly about him, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly a puff piece without notability. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are many reliable sources that can be found to support this article (many of which are not in English); "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Since AFD calls for deletion which speaks in the negative - edits need to be made with bias towards preservation. This very point is outlined and made in AFD documentation. I do not think it is productive to flag articles for deletion as soon as they are written as this creates a massive disincentive to add content. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found another sourced and added it, and I expanded the article based on existing sources. I found the New York Times coverage to be significant coverage and a reliable source, and combined with the other source I added, I think that refutes the initial justification to delete. CT55555(talk) 08:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A paraphrase describing his music from the NYT was found the original draft was deleted in tandem with the speedy delete and follow on AFD which significantly weakened the article. The main point of the article was removed in that he "performs "haunting" vocalizations which are ethereal, surreal, and organic. His impromptu vocalizations sometimes mimic natural sounds" Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have I understood correctly that you have not !voted either to keep or delete yet? CT55555(talk) 19:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still recommend deletion: clearly a puff piece without genuine and established notability. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)— Duplicate vote: BoyTheKingCanDance (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

BoyTheKingCanDance, you voted twice, with almost the same comment, under two different usenames. What happened here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 22:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although in its present state the article is admittedly not impressive, as said above there are acceptable foreign-language sources available - CT5555 has added one; I've added another; and there will be more, particularly in Romanian and Georgian, which I haven't searched - which IMO satisfy GNG. Ingratis (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.