Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LS Mark

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LS Mark

[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)

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage. The most I can find is an interview done in a regional newspaper, with most other online information coming from unverfiable fan-collected material. Regardless of which policy we look at this through, I don't think the sparse sourcing supports retention. Whether assessed under WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER, the subject isn't receiving sufficient attention to reach the notability threshold. This was a disputed PROD by the article creator, Beargreen1 (talk · contribs) Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Ireland. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search shows a lack of wide coverage to show notability. The article includes mention of a show the subject is working on that says t will be released in 2023. Wikipedia articles are not based on the future. Badly fails WP:GNG and does not pass Basic. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, ineligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator could WP:DRAFTIFY, but as it stands (and based on the available refs) this feels WP:TOOSOON. A WP:BEFORE returns only the same sources we find in the article. And three sources (an online-only local news source, an "and finally" section on a local TV channel's web outlet, and an apparent blog post/interview) do not add-up to WP:SIGCOV. Guliolopez (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for reviewer closer. Likely already noted, but article's creator has added what appear to be "keep" arguments on AfD Talkpage(?) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 22:03, 20 January 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.