Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:52, 15 November 2015

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Music. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Music|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Music. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Music

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 Speedy delete g7, author requested deletion on article talk page. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSP Music Group

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

No evidence of any notability. All the artist refs are Wikipedia articles. Two other refs are own web-sites and another is a very local source to Cedar Falls. Nothing here anywhere close to WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Evidence of Notability - Request before article completion. Assistance from WP to properly cite and create reference. Citations updated. Edits to correct- still learning cite, systems and abbreviations. Notability is referenced and cited. Need wp assistance. Updated since find source request- added- updated third party sourced. Categorized — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristay2017 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC) This is my very first wikipedia article so I am learning as I post. I have taken my time, updating it daily as I do more research. New cites from third party sources added[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better third-party can actually be found as I found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability sourced- with reference, link, cites. - Requested before article completion. Assistance from WP to properly cite and create reference. Citations updated. Edits to correct- still learning cite, systems and abbreviations. Notability is referenced and cited. Need wp assistance. Updated since find source request- added- updated. Categorized. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristay2017 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 19 November 2015 (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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piano rock

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

As previously stated, piano rock is not a genre, so this can only mean a rock song with a piano. See previous nominations, too. Please note: previous AfDs were both delete.Richhoncho (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is full of unreliable sources and the reliable sources it has are misused. Most importantly, none of them point to a genre that is called "piano rock".--SabreBD (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic certainly exists and is notable as there are numerous books written about it including:

Rock 'N' Roll Piano
The Everything Rock & Blues Piano Book
Rock Piano: For Beginning to Advanced Students
Progressive Rock Piano
The Best of Rock 'n' Roll Piano
Discovering Rock Piano
Rock Piano: Professional Know-how of Contemporary Keyboard-playing
The Total Rock Keyboardist
Improvising Rock Piano
Rock Around the Piano

The topic therefore passes the general notability guide. It's obviously a popular form used by artists such as Jerry Lee lewis and Elton John and so seems as sensible a musical topic as jazz piano or the piano concerto. Andrew D. (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of course pianos are used in rock music, and all of the books listed above are about the piano in rock music. Not the same as 'piano rock' as a genre - books about rock drumming wouldn't make 'drumming rock' a valid genre. My instinct is that there is a valid genre here (or perhaps a semi-coherent style of rock music), but I'm not sure that it's supported by sources. --Michig (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Genres have often been defined by the instrumentation that is constituted therein. Take an example of piano blues that's bluesy music based around the piano, or EDM that's made up of electronically improvised instruments. There's instruments that have grown to be staples and almost inevitable in mainstream rock such as electric guitars, and so designating a rock sub-genre along that line would be logically useless! But pianos don't fall in that category. Another example is acoustic rock that's performed by acoustic instruments. It is a common valid way to distinguish a genre using the lead instrument.user:James Odisemoor (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the Rolling Stone magazine to Allmusic, there's a whole lot of evidence of "piano rock" being regarded as a genre in rock music. Bands like Coldplay and the like are referred to in that vein. The definitive melody of a genre is determined by the lead instrument and so the argument that it can't be a sufficient criterion to designate a name for the genre holds little water.user:James Diner (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC
Comment. Piano rock, just like piano blues, just like raga rock, just like synth rock is a valid classification of a particular sphere of music on the pop scene. It's allover wikipedia in French, Spanish e.t.c.

Johnxxxxsp (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC

I checked the Piano blues article, and saw a list of pianists, who were described as playing in the following genres; Boogie-woogie, stride, Chicago etc, so perhaps that article should be renamed List of blues pianists...? AS for other comments, there is acoustic music, but not acoustic guitar or guitar rock! There is a reason. As for what is in the French & Italian Wiki... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:RS. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and several of the above editors. In reviewing the past two AfD's, both of which resulted in delete, I find the most cogent comment to be Scottywong's, which said "A genre is a style of music, which is largely independent of the instrument on which it is played. This is why there is not one other subgenre of rock that is defined by a specific instrument. You can play rock songs on a ukulele, but that doesn't make it "Ukulele Rock". It's just rock played on a ukulele."Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons above. Aria1561 (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sympathetic to the notional genre but if the main sources are terribly weak ones such as unsigned Last.fm pages then the topic is not ready for prime time. The entire "Terminology" section is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. The part explaining how "piano rock" became a distinct rock genre hinges on a source that doesn't even mention piano rock! This patchwork article cannot represent the topic; rather, if there is a topic to present to the reader, then our text must be based on solid sources. Binksternet (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not surprised this got re-created, this will inevitably get recreated even if we salted the name, because it is a legitimate subject, just poorly written about and sourced.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the reasons for deletion have been adequately addressed. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's a genre here, the article doesn't make a good case for it, and neither do its sources or supporters. Fats Domino and Coldplay are the same subgenre of rock because both use pianos? Nah. There's certainly a category of piano-centered singer-songwriters à la Elton John and Billy Joel (both of whom owe a greater debt to Paul McCartney than to Jerry Lee Lewis) that extends through artists such as Ben Folds, Fiona Apple, Joe Jackson, and Vanessa Carlton; but, you can't rope in any band that sometimes uses piano (Coldplay) or any piano-playing rock artist (Keith Emerson) based on the instrument alone. And then, whither artists who switched between guitar and piano, such as Joni Mitchell or the aforementioned McCartney? Early rock & roll was piano-based because the electric guitar was still relatively new and a tradition for it had not yet been fully established; that doesn't mean Little Richard was in a separate genre from Chuck Berry. Rather, it seems to me that the singer-songwriter article could be greatly expanded to account for piano-based artists from Carole King to Regina Spektor. Pstoller (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (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.

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. Sandstein 14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteness in hip hop

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

fake article Lfstevens (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Imaginable that an article could be written on this subject, but this does not even begin to be that article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be promotional to Iggy Azalea.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads more like an argumentative paper than an encyclopedia entry. This isn't the place. Fuzchia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This "idea" is more of a blurb of a thesis and draws a lot of conclusions without backing. I assume that there could be writing out there to make a claim for support, but would need to be revisited at a later point. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Horrendous topic, article and execution. Editor does not seem to have a vested interest in the encyclopaedia and is perhaps venting some issues via this article. It is completely unsubstantiated and there's a complete lack of contemporary, critical or academic discussion on the subject. Rayman60 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the not-quite-as-weak Representation of black women in hip hop, this was a student writing exercise, and is a good example of why teachers of English composition classes need to stop assigning "write a Wikipedia article" as homework. I outlined at Talk:Whiteness in hip hop#How to salvage something from this article? how to possibly make this a viable article, and drew WT:WikiProject Hip Hop's attention to both articles (here), but a month later nothing has happened. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:46, 19 November 2015 (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.

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. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FiLTH

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent reliable sources found for this musical subgenre. I don't usually do music articles, but as far as I can see musical genres don't fall under WP:NMUSIC. Appears to have been created to bolster the creator's latest attempt to create an article on musician G-Mo Skee (speedied all 4 times}. Fan page for the musician https://g-mo.bandcamp.com/ states that G-Mo Skee invented the genre, and his fans have named it FiLTH. Meters (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 26 November 2015 (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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kings And Comrades

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

Reference #1: Authorless "JamBase" article, looks like it is probably a kind of press release Reference #2: LastFM, "Artist descriptions on Last.fm are editable by everyone."— band bio probably written by one of its members Reference #3: ReverbNation, only a track listing and short self-written bio Reference #4: Jambase again, here the band is mentioned only trivially in a lineup with a lot of other bands.

None of these references meet the criteria of being non-trivial, independent, reliable sources. If this is the best that the author(s) can come up with, then this band, which has no record label, fails to meet the guidelines at WP:NBAND as well as the requirements of WP:GNG. Also likely to apply here: WP:GARAGE. KDS4444^Talk 14:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have no idea where to comment this, since I'm European and not used to the English lang. version of Wikipedia and all boxes and places to discuss you use. I want to state following.

1) I, who created the article on Wikipedia about Kings and Comrades, am not a band member, have no connections to them and has never met them. I have never been to America. I was listening to them on Spotify and wanted to read about them and could hardly find anything on Internet. The little I found, I cleaned from advertising and band promotion, and what's left is only facts about the band and therefore an encyclopedic text. It's free from band promotion. Many articles about other bands on Wikipedia sounds like homages and adorations, but not this article.

2) Sanmare, who wrote the biography about Kings and Comrades on LastFM, has the same status: doesn't know the band, is not American, has never met or talked to any band members. He is from Sweden, a country quite far away from USA and Philadelphia, where the Kings and Comrades are based. Can't this be proved by checking the IP or something? I'm no computer expert.

3) Yes, the sources are poor and I wish there where better ones, and better sources may show up in the future. Most info is on the band's own Facebook page, and that source has been avoided. I have tried to only leave the facts about the band. Article is encyclopedic and not promotion. The band exists, the band has the named members and has made the mentioned albums and songs, they can be played on Spotify, YouTube and other places, and the band participated in the mentioned concerts. So the article should not be erased from Wikipedia. Have a great day, --Caspiax 10:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspiax (talk • contribs)

Delete - There's no obviously better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches of the usual types produced some reviews ([1], [2], [3], [4]) in sources that are neither on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources recommended sources list nor on their sources to avoid list. Like JamBase and ReverbNation, however, they do not exhibit the characteristics of reliable sources. Arguably the best of the bunch is the review in The Pier, which, for example is by a recent marketing graduate who works for a music venue and for Skunk Records and writes that he "wrote reviews and got into shows for free, a perfect trade-off." Further searches of the Philadelphia papers, reggaereport.com, and www.roots-archives.com turned up nothing more than gig listings. Therefore does not meet WP:BAND. Worldbruce (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2015 (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.

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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Draga

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

Biography lacking any sources whatsoever, doesn't seem to meet notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 15:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added one reference but that is only a listing name-check for an article by the subject. More promising is an article on "George Draga and the Concept of Heterophony in the Seventies" if anyone has institutional access to the Musicology Today journal. AllyD (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 25 November 2015 (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.

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. KTC (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhemic Destruction

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing better at all for a better article and this current version simply seems like any other album article aside from their information of course. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree 100% with SwisterTwister but I could change my mind if something else pops up that I can't think of. Tyler Mongrove (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 16:08, 17 November 2015 (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.

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. KTC (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaymlusly Elliterate

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

The same reasons given in the deletion discussion for the artist "Elliterate" apply here: sources are either local, lack independence, are trivial mentions, or do not discuss the subject of the article. KDS4444^Talk 07:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator, and I didn't find any reliable sources when I searched. Not notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2015 (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.

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. KTC (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Maxwell

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

Biography of non-notable person. The "National Academy of Best-Selling Authors" is a vanity award [5] and absolutely not a claim to notability, and all sources except one are primary sources such as press releases or directory listings. The exception is a review on a blog, so not a reliable source and again not support for notability. bonadea contributions talk 19:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom has a point. The alleged book, "Transform: Your Life, Business & Health" is puzzling because of this Amazon.com page: [6] which appears to show the same title being promoted as 3 separate titles all identical except with a different author's name featured on the cover. Also here: [7]. Some sort of scam? I don't know. What I do know is that I can't source or validate Maxwell's authorship.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems self-promotional. All the references are basically press releases rather than independent coverage of some kind of notable achievement. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 11 November 2015 (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.

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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Klaiman

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

Notability is not inherited. No signs of being notable on his own. Amortias (T)(C) 23:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing anything convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Strong Keep If we start invoking inheritability re: notability for record company executives, we're going to have valid deletion arguments for half of them. I have added references to the article to the point that it may qualify as WP:OVERKILL. ~~I will add references to the article (and clean it up/rewrite when I have some time).~~ There are ample sources: Billboard, Variety, Hits, New York Post, FMQB, and R&R, among others. ~~although I'll do more digging - this is a very quick search: Billboard (and quick google search to Billboard articles alone Hundreds of results from Hits, including feature FMQB cover story .~~ It still needs a rewrite/cleanup, which I will work on when I have more time. Julie JSFarman (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has significant enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:BIO.—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Borderline, but Variety is probably mainstream enough for this to be a good source: [8]. I'll ping User:SwisterTwister to see if he wants to reconsider his vote? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several of the sources on the page mention him specifically. There's still some wording to tone down and/or remove though. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2015 (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.

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. Biblioworm 16:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He Pai Noa (song)

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

Song from non-notable musician. No coverage outside of streaming services, forums or listings. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 10:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for stated reasons above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 10:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 10:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 10:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest better here. SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't establish notability NealeFamily (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2015 (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.

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. Michig (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate Symphony Orchestra

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

Seems to have been developed by WP:SPA/s. Amateur orchestra, no evidence of notability. Dweller (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I cannot find any evidence that this amateur orchestra is sufficiently notable to keep. BabelStone (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better than some Books links. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on google or gnews. No refs in article. Szzuk (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2015 (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.

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 redirect to Kisses for Kings, almost always redirect is preferred to delete if there is an obvious target.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forget to Remember (EP)

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

Article has no references, and makes no assertion for notability. Band itself might not be notable but this seems more clear cut. My own searches turned up nothing that can be added. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 21:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kisses for Kings, where it is already mentioned. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2015 (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.

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 keep. (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Between the Pines

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

Charted EP, but no substantial secondary sourcing. Tracklist is sourced to an unreliable page. Only passingly mentioned in most of the sources I could find; no reviews or other third party coverage found. Delete or redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this meets WP:NALBUMS since it charted on three separate charts, and anyways it has a lot of coverage, e.g.: [9], [10], [11], [12]. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per above, charted quite well on national US and Canadian album charts, recieved a decent amount of secondary coverage. Passes WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 21:10, 18 November 2015 (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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Punk Radio Cast

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. I can find a lot of links on social media and streaming sites but only one article with a couple of lines of text in WP:RS.

Rouner, Jeff (2010-08-18). "The 11 Best Internet-only Radio Stations". Houston Press.
Jbh ^Talk 23:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 23:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 23:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 23:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 23:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 23:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better. Pinging interested subject users Michig, Walter Görlitz, New Media Theorist and Bearcat. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reluctant Delete~~ GNG ~~There's Spelglädje som firar 10 år i kväll. Again (looks like) a one-line coverage?~~ "This record has been played on Punk Radio Cast." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Need to search PunkRadioCast - brings a lot more hits. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Up to a short para now.. here R.F. 2015-11-3Z19:23
On the fence for the moment. I'm definitely not loving the level of sourcing that's actually present here so far, but there are certainly notability claims being made here that would make for a valid keep if the sourcing were a bit better. ProQuest didn't help at all, but I wasn't really expecting that it would — this isn't a class of topic that mainstream daily newspapers would be likely to cover all that extensively. But the topic does seem to have the level of genre-specific prominence necessary — internet radio streams that actually succeed in getting wikinotable bands to perform live shows on the stream? internet radio streams that actually succeed in getting wikinotable bands to sign on to a branded compilation album? — that it's clearly something more than just your average non-notable internet stream. So music magazines, especially genre-specific ones, may very well come to its rescue nonetheless — I've already been able to add a fifth source just by searching Exclaim! alone. Sometime closer to November 9, I'll come back to reevaluate whether the sourcing has been improved enough — but at least in principle, the notability is there and it's just a question of referencing it better. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article was kept after the 2009 AFD, when references were added. Some have been removed as dead links just before the recent proposed deletion. I don't know if they are reliable sources but at least one is still online with a different URL (http://www.wired.com/2008/05/punk-rock-webca/, formerly blog.wired.com/music/2008/05/punk-rock-webca.html). Peter James (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2015 (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.

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fer Sure

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

Fails WP:NSONG/WP:GNG as there appears to be no published reliable sources about the song itself. Brycehughes (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 10:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found Arizona press of dubious independence, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. --joe decker ^talk 18:03, 15 November 2015 (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.

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. No consensus over whether this stand-alone list should be kept, but there is consensus to rename this. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 09:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Musical Instruments Corporation product list

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

Product catalog (Wikipedia is not a catalog). Unreferenced entirely. Most links redirect to the corporate page; the rest are broken because the product is not notable. Indiscriminate list problems, as well. The best place for a list of Fender products is Fender's commercial website. Mikeblas (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better need for this article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to a Wikipedia:Books article, leaving a redirect. Another option might be to merge with the NAVBOX. This is a useful article and is accessed 1300 times per month. I disagree with the nominator's contention that the manufacturer is motivated in any way to maintain this information, they are interested in selling new instruments and generally do not maintain information on legacy models. This type of information is otherwise only available in very expensive specialty books. This is a fantastic compilation directory of legacy models/articles where a non Wikipedia geek can easily improve the topic. I believe the perceived problem here is the form, not the content. -- 009o9 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is clearly a sales/product catalog... WP:SOAPBOX is being grossly violated by this. If it survives AfD, categorize it into a list article and contact WikiProject Guitarists to fix it. Ceosad (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, in my opinion the worst issue is that it is entirely unreferenced. Ceosad (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article that requires a reference WP:MINREF. Unless someone challenges that one of the products is not by Fender, or challenges the opening sentence. I think if you just change the name to "List of Fender Musical Instruments Corporation products" you will have a list article. I'm not seeing how a glossary of products, by name only can be WP:SOAPBOX. Sadly, a lot of model-specific articles have already been AfD'd and redirected to a parent article. Specific model component information and the place to keep it has been lost, the information was helpful when restoring an instrument to factory specs, or inspecting specific models for authenticity. The number of guitar players in the US was estimated at 10 million in 2004 and Fender is well respected brand, this is not an obscure topic. Sad to see so much nice work destroyed. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of Fender Musical Instruments Products (or something else in line with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Stand-alone_list_articles). I agree with 009o9's analysis of why references aren't essential for a list of this nature, and the fact that so many of the entries have stand-alone articles here makes this a valuable addition to the encyclopeia as a list. Invoke WP:IAR if needed. I also agree that this is useful and represents a lot of work which should not be thrown away; if it is felt that it's not appropriate for en.wikipedia for policy reasons, it would make sense to move this to some other venue where it could find a good home. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to revisit your observations. There are lots of red-links in this list. Many of the active links from specialty models (celebrity endorsements or sub-models) are piped or redirected links to generic models. I completely agree about another venue for this list. How about the Fender Musical Instruments Corporation corporate website, at fender.com? -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2015 (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.

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. There are valid arguments for deletion as well as inclusion. However, there is no clear consensus to support either. The article can always be renominated in the future. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 02:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skene! Records

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

Seemingly non-notable and unimprovable article with my searches finding nothing better than this and there aren't even any signs confirming this label still exists and lastly this article has existed the same since starting in February 2007 (hardly changed much since then too). Pinging interested users Michig, Walter Görlitz and Chubbles. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, but I don't know why I was summoned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you comment at these articles as is the case with Michig so I thought I would give you an early ping.

Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The label is defunct, but that's ultimately immaterial to its notability. I think this label manages to meet the closest thing we have to a relevant guideline for record labels, which is the part in WP:MUSIC about what constitutes "one of the more important indie labels" - that it is "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable." Skene released records from Green Day, Shades Apart, Lifter Puller, Trenchmouth, Jawbreaker, Actionslacks, and Crimpshrine, all of which are independently notable and most of which had lasting impacts on the 1990s alternative and punk scenes. There's some fluff and stories which ought to be excised from the article, but the basic skeleton - the factual information about its founding and location, and its roster of artists - is readily verifiable. Chubbles (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, where is the better improvement including the better sourcing, Chubbles? SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. I have spent enough time cleaning up articles to save them; please don't presume that I will continue to volunteer my time in this way. Chubbles (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Berliner Gramophone no longer exists either, but it is notable. Skene is important to the history of Green Day, and released records by several other notable bands. This can be confirmed by a cursory Google Books search. As such it is "one of the more important indie labels" under NMUSIC #5. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It helps to do more open searches, e.g. like Skene Records Minneapolis or Skene "Jeff Spiegel", and I have added what I could find: it's all passing mention. The comparison with another defunct label, Berliner Gramophone, whose notability has not been questioned is a WP:WAX argument. Both Keep votes assumably quote WP:MUSICBIO #5, but that criteria is for musicians and ensembles, not record labels; they fall under WP:CORP, and this one fails. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised this argument keeps cropping up every once in a while. As I have long argued, it is inappropriate to judge labels according to business criteria; musicological and pop-cultural subject experts ought to decide their notability. Bands are businesses, too, but we do not judge them according to WP:CORP. Chubbles (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Assertion of notability: "what matters is the existence of reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic that have published detailed content about it, regardless of the present state of the article." Please add them. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. The label has a proven impact upon musical culture by developing and distributing art, as proven by the multiple notable groups. The label existed pre-internet, or at best just to the very earliest days of the WWW. As such sources are likely offline, but are aslo likely to exist. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added sources and find that subject is not notable. WP:PAPERONLY is a possibility, but until any of the Keep !voters add them, claims like "proven impact upon musical culture" is based purely on a WP:MUST assumption, and that's just not good enough per WP:V. - Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Defunct but notable. warpozio (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is in and by itself not an argument for keep. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:03, 22 November 2015 (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.

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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Dante

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JohnatDegRecords (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Lucien Dante has performed as a featured musician in 2014 at a very notable event called the Teddy Awards, Germany's biggest LGBT film festival and awards show.^[1][reply]

References

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNlI5RINwdI

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 11 November 2015 (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.

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. Biblioworm 16:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Warner Concert Grand Suitcase

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

Article about a brand of record player, citing exactly no reliable source coverage to make it a notable brand of record player — the only "sources" here are a YouTube video and two eBay auctions, thus igniting the suspicion that the real intention here was to boost the eBay sales. (If I could definitively prove that, then I'd speedy this as a blatant advertisement — but I can't, so AFD it is.) Delete unless real references can be located. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no real references because it's from 1940 and the only thing to show that it a real record player is to make ebay references. I do not know why you think it to boost ebay sales why would i want to do that? Its not advertisement cause it a real record player that not being made no more and the brand is Stewart Warner so it is notable. Jdogmad (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References on Wikipedia have to be to reliable sources. They cannot be to eBay auctions or YouTube videos — if you cannot find reliable source coverage, then the thing just doesn't get to have an article. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a record player, like hundreds or thousands of others. This particular model doesn't appear to be notable in any way; it doesn't even rate a mention in Stewart-Warner. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DElete for want of WP:RS. Do we really need an article on every model of record player, radio, and TV? that would be the implication of keeping this. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2015 (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.

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. Euryalus (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Today (Nina Sky album)

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

Non notable album that was never released. Koala15 (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes and there's no convincingly better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CLear cut delete it never happened Legacypac (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2015 (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.

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. Biblioworm 16:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voices of van Gogh

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

Article about a non-notable music group. I was only able to find one source (a local newspaper). Fails WP:BAND. - Mr X 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voices of van Gogh are a notable new musical ensemble. John Cate is a widely and regularly published (October 2015 CBS TV series NCIS and Zoo), Scarlet Rivera is a world-renowned violinist who recently performed at the United Nations and John Durrill is an internationally known songwriter (Cher's "Dark Lady", Merle Haggard's "Misery and Gin" among many others) and performer in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Because of these individual backgrounds, it is important to memorialize this new project created by the contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vangoghbrother (talk • contribs) 08:55, October 25, 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy later if needed as I simply see no convincingly better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This needs many more reliable sources and also the title is not using proper case. Tyler Mongrove (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2015 (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.

Music Proposed deletions

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNlI5RINwdI

[1]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ==Music==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CSP_Music_Group}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano rock (3rd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Whiteness_in_hip_hop}}