Your Face Sounds Familiar (Slovenian TV series): Tagged for notability since 2016 Donald D23 talk to me 19:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Television ,  and Slovenia .  Donald D23 talk to me 19:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The show meets GNG : it was widely reported on in Slovenia and is discussed in-depth in reliable secondary sources.  [26] [27] [28] [29] -- TadejM my talk 00:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - there are dozens of sources to be found, which points to NO prior BEFORE was done.  Please do read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP .  -- Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 10:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sources in the article and BEFORE show all promo, interviews, etc.  Nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV.  As for the sources above are reflective of the types of sources in the article: [30] : Redirecting to home search results page.  [31] : promo.  [32] : Promo.  [33] : promo.  Lots of promo, but nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 05:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [34] is a list of in-depth articles and does not redirect to home page.  As to the rest, please elaborate why you call in-depth articles 'promo'.  I would not assess them as promo.  These are explanatory articles published in reliable sources.  Do you even understand the content?  -- TadejM my talk 07:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes I understand content and notability, you snide little comments are not needed, see WP:CIVIL . I changed "home" to "search" above. As for the content on the search results page, its 47 pages of generic search results most of which have nothing to do with the subject, none of which has SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 08:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was a reasonable question. If anything here violates WP:CIVIL , it's your words: 'you snide little comments'. Given that you claim most of the results have nothing to do with the show, I seriously doubt that you understand the content (or you are simply reporting misinformation to be civil). Please also note that the page does not 'redirect to search results page' but rather is a list of search results. -- TadejM my talk 08:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was commenting on your comment, not your person; your comment was about an editor.  You need to stop directing personal comments at other editors.  It is a clear Wikipedia civility guide to comment on content, not contributors.  I suggest you read WP:ADMINCOND .  // Timothy :: talk 08:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A kettle calling the pot black.  It was a reasonable question in the context of whether you can properly assess the notability as you do not have Slovene listed on your page as one of the languages that you understand.  Please also note that it was you who used the word you when saying 'you snide little comments'.  I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH yourself.  -- TadejM my talk 08:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note that this was the most watched show in Slovenia for many seasons. [For example, in 2016: "The most-watched show of the spring reigned supreme for 12 Sundays and yesterday produced a spectacular finale, which achieved a remarkable 18.9% rating and 62% share on POP TV ( Source: AGB Nielsen Media research, 18-54 year olds, share of total live TV viewers, 29.5.2016)."] [35] -- TadejM my talk 08:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is even a diploma thesis analysing the show. -- TadejM my talk 08:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A diploma thesis is not IS RS, see WP:RS , "theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" Popularity is not a substitute for N. See WP:N , IS RS sources with SIGCOV are required, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below ." // Timothy :: talk 08:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, and these two sources have been provided subsequently to further support the argument that the subject meets the notability criterion.  The required in-depth articles have already been provided above.  -- TadejM my talk 08:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment type "Znan obraz ima svoj glas" to any Slovenian newspaper and see what you get. For example [36] and the first one I found was [37] . Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 10:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- coming into this late, it sort of seems like we're arguing in circles here, but I think given the sheer volume of sources, trying to argue that it's just "routine" coverage seems a little disingenuous.  If something is getting "routine" coverage at this volume, that basically suggests its notable, logically, for me, and the volume of things pretty clearly indicates NEXIST.  I think for some others, the issue seems to be that there are not specific URLs that can be pointed to that are more in-depth.  @ Pelmeen10 or @ TadejM , if there are specific articles that you think would provide the best sourcing, as opposed to showing the volume of the coverage, that might assuage some other's concerns - and then they could be added as in-line citations to the article.  While I can try to Google Translate things to get the jist of them, it can be quite difficult to do that at volume.  matt91486 ( talk ) 14:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't speak Slovenian either.  The Slovenian Wiki mostly uses 24ur.com as sources and they have done articles for all six seasons.  1083 results with the search term is quite a lot.  Hopefully TadejM as a native speaker can help here.  Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 15:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have already provided the requested in-depth articles above.  -- TadejM my talk 17:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source evaluation : For all the talk above its worth noting that the above editors don't even bother adding their citations to the article and it remains unreferences.  Here is the source eval of the refs the Keeps didn't bother to add: Clearly promo stories https://www.delo.si/tag/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/ More promo https://www.zurnal24.si/kljucne-besede/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas-76565/articles Still more promo https://www.koroskenovice.si/oznaka/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/ Nostalgia promo https://vecer.com/film-in-tv/limonada-kaj-za-vraga-so-naredili-s-sovom-znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas-10274328 Promo recap of an episode https://www.had.si/blog/2016/05/30/tilen-artac-zmagovalec-oddaje-znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/ A diploma thesis.  A throw everything and the kitchen sink style spam ref http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/dela/vuckovic-jelena.PDF Promo articles, interviews, episode recaps, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV https://www.times.si/iskanje/? q=Znan%20obraz%20ima%20svoj%20glas Promo recap of an episode https://www.metropolitan.si/scena/glasba/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/ Much of the above Keep comments are based on the show being popular, and using promo resources to try and show notability.  WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity" Fame may result in notability, but in this case it has not.  Promo refs and popularity do not equal notability.  // Timothy :: talk 01:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's important to remember that simply labeling something as a "promo story" doesn't make it so.  A quick review of the news articles cited above reveals a range of coverage that is critical, informative, and often quite insightful.  For instance, the set of articles from Delo.si ( https://www.delo.si/tag/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/ ) offers a series of interviews and reports that give readers a behind-the-scenes look at the show's personalities and performances.  The first article is an interview with a personality from the show, the second article presents another personality from the show, and the third article includes a report on what was going on in the show.  Zurnal24.si ( https://www.zurnal24.si/kljucne-besede/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas-76565/articles ) features a range of articles that tackle the show's controversies head-on: The first article is a critical report on the behavior of the show's jury, clearly not a promotional piece.  The second and third articles provide a report on two performances, while the fourth article covers a change in the show and critical commentaries of its audience, again clearly not a promo.  The fifth article discusses why the former leader left, highlighting that it may be too low an honorary, and is as such also clearly not a promotional piece.  Finally, Večer.com ( https://vecer.com/film-in-tv/limonada-kaj-za-vraga-so-naredili-s-sovom-znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas-10274328 ) offers a critical take on the show's recent changes, including the departure of its former leader and the impact it has had on the show's overall tone and style.  Taken together, these in-depth articles published in reliable sources present a comprehensive and complex portrayal of the show.  The articles avoid simple promotional language and instead offer insightful analysis and commentary.  it is clear from the breadth and depth of coverage that the show satisfies the notability criteria of Wikipedia.  -- TadejM my talk 13:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now added citations to the article's lead section, including an article in Primorske novice that was not mentioned earlier. -- TadejM my talk 13:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NEXIST, for the record, does not require sources to be added to the article, merely identified, Timothy, so "that the above editors don't even bother adding their citations to the article" is not relevant for the AfD.  matt91486 ( talk ) 10:41, 17 April 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.

Discussion outcome: keep