Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Ghost

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ghost

[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)

I found no significant coverage. He won a few awards, but they don't appear to be major. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability because awards does not just indiscriminately attach to every single award that exists in the world — it attaches to major national awards (Grammys, Junos, Polaris, Mercury Prize, etc.) that get media coverage, and not to regional or small-fry awards that have to be primary sourced to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself because media coverage about the award presentation is nonexistent. (That is, an award has to itself pass GNG on coverage of the award before it can become notable enough to bestow notability on its winners.) But the awards listed here are the latter, not the former — and the article says absolutely nothing else about him that would be "inherently" notable in the absence of a clear WP:GNG pass on the sourcing either, but the sourcing is junk across the board with not even one properly reliable or GNG-worthy footnote in the bunch. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2022 (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.