Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:52, 1 May 2022

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Bands and musicians. 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|Bands and musicians|~~~~}} 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 Bands and musicians. 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

Bands and musicians

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. Broad agreement that there is sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Schmidt

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

Despite having been the writer of several notable hits, it has not resulted in WP:SIGCOV for the individual. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources I already added, which consist of third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources discuss the subject at length? Let me help you...

"Industry Interview". The Sound Alarm. Archived from the original on 14 May 2014. Retrieved 9 April 2014. archived interview by: Matt Nistler in a no-defunct online publication
"Quietdrive Recording New EP". Absolute Punk. Retrieved 9 April 2014. - dead
"Sing It Loud (Track by Track)". Alternative Press. Retrieved 9 April 2014. - dead
"The Role Call". MTV. Retrieved 9 April 2014. - dead
http://www.wevolvemusic.com/ - dead
"Florida Georgia Line Members Launch Publishing Company". Music Row. 2015. Retrieved April 30, 2015. "Tree Vibez Music, has signed new talent Jordan Schmidt". That's the only mention of the subject.
https://www.billboard.com/music/country/jordan-schmidt-interview-producer-drunk-me-lil-bit-9603658/ - Good piece that goes into detail
https://people.com/country/country-artist-renee-blair-engaged-producer-jordan-schmidt/ - fluff piece, but lengthy.
"Jason Aldean – Chart history". Billboard Country Airplay for Jason Aldean. Retrieved 2016-07-18. - another artist's chart, no details on subject
"Jason Aldean – Chart history". Billboard Hot Country Songs for Jason Aldean. Retrieved 2016-07-18. - another artist's chart, no details on subject
"Nick Fradiani – Chart history". Billboard Pop Songs Airplay for Nick Fradiani. Retrieved 2016-11-05. - another artist's chart, no details on subject

Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You answered your own question. 7 and 8 are good in depth sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except I don't know if People is really SIGCOV. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Sammi Brie: and @Caldorwards4: for their expertise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be sufficient number of sources, as provided above, to meet notability. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree GNG is met. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:41, 9 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.

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 keep. Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Crowell

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

Despite having been the writer of several notable hits, it has not resulted in any WP:SIGCOV for the individual. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, writer of several #1 hits, producer of several notable albums, two-time Grammy nominee. Biographical info in this source and this source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the Billboard write-ups never come up in my searches? Good finds. Withdrawn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 2 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.

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) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Mittelmann

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

I tried to search for a reference to verify whether he has died or not, and I can find almost nothing on him apart from stuff copied from Wikipedia. Probably not notable? Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG. What an odd nomination. There are two major reference works already provided in the article in which Mittelmann has an entry: The Canadian Encyclopedia (see here; this source has the date of death and it was included in the article; @Ascendingrisingharmonising did you even bother to look at the sources already on the page?) and Theaterlexikon der Schweiz; both reference works notable enough to have articles on the sources themselves. Additionally, a google books search yields more sources and digging up reviews in major press doesn't appear difficult. For example, in just digging through the archives of The New York Times here are a selection of available reviews just from that one publication that could be used to expand the article: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] Clearly WP:BEFORE was not followed. Lastly, as a winner of the Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions (a major singing competition); he clearly passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO, criteria 4 of WP:CREATIVE, and criteria 9 of WP:MUSICBIO. Strongly suggest the nominator withdraw this poorly thought through nomination.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep − obviously. No shortage of references to him in opera reviews in The Times. In one (16 March 1965) he gets a much better notice than Pavarotti in Traviata. His Dr Miracle was praised for its sinister quality (15 March 1966) and as Don Carlo at Covent Garden he was praised for "his powerful well-focused voice" and was "rightly cheered" by the audience.(7 May 1975). Clearly notable, and I agree with 4meter4 that the proposal to delete the article is, to put it as kindly as possible, ill considered. − Tim riley talk 19:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - massive before failure by User:Ascendingrisingharmonising - can they withdraw? In seconds I've found 2 encyclopaedia entrances and a detailed 1961 Winnipeg Free Press article. Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references are good. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well referenced as explained above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has a long and impressive entry in the "Bible" of opera singers, and we should get more from it. I'm busy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt I expanded it slightly and added citations. Much more could be written about the roles he performed and important productions and recording he participated in, but at least it's no longer a stub.4meter4 (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of above. For the love of God, can trigger happy editors do WP:BEFORE and read the relevant guideline before wasting everyone's time? Atchom (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though given God's trigger happy tendency of smiting first, and asking questions later, perhaps that's not the best deity to invoke, by Frig. ☻ Nfitz (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No-brainer keep.--Smerus (talk) 12:41, 3 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.

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 Draftification which was suggest by two participants.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balen Shah

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

Balen Shah

Non-notable rapper, engineer, and would-be politician who does not satisfy general notability, political notability, or musical notability. A draft was submitted and declined twice, by different submitters and different reviewers, both of whom said it did not establish biographical notability. This article was then resubmitted by another editor and created in article space by another editor, and the subject still is not notable. Nothing in the article or the draft establishes general notability. As a candidate for Mayor of a large city, the subject does not satisfy political notability. The discography (which has been copied from the draft) does not establish musical notability. An article should speak for itself without the need to check the references, and this article does not, but the references have been checked. Seven of them are about his mayoral campaign, and are all primary coverage or passing mentions. None of them provide the coverage required for general notability.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Onlinekhabar	About Nepalese rap	Yes	No. Passing mention of subject.	Probably	No
2	Khabarhub.com	Story about filing as candidate for Mayor	Yes	Not really	Probably	No
3	https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/	A press release about filing for Mayor	No	Not really		No
4	Nepalipatra.com	News about the election campaign for Mayor	Yes	Not really	Probably	No
5	Setopati.com	Mention of candidacy for Mayor	Yes	Not really	Probably	No
6	Makalukhabar.com	Release of full election manifesto (Did not translate, but not necessary to translate to determine independence)	No	Yes	Yes	No
7	https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/	About a new television show - Did not find mention of subject	Yes	No	Probably	No
8	https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/	Says he received a stick as his symbol for election campaign	Yes	No	Probably	No
9	theannapurnaexpress.com	Story about May 17 elections	Yes	No, passing mention of subject	Probably	Yes

There may be coordination between editors by his political campaign. This need not be addressed because he does not satisfy notability. Similarly, it is not necessary to inquire whether the editors have conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, and Nepal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is one of the well known musician/rapper from Nepal, which might be the reason other users also tried to create an article of him before. About his discography, no matter who writes about it, it will still be same because he was involved in those projects, so I don't know what different I could have done for that part. One biggest challenge I have gone through with articles related to Nepali people or films is that most of the time sources are considered unreliable. All of those sources which you have considered "probably" in terms of reliability are some of the best sources which covers Nepal related news coverage. Also regarding your comments on "would-be politician", I don't think only office or position holders are considered politician, as much as I know, person running for the office or position is also considered politician. I also do not have any coordination with any of the editors who you mentioned also tried to create this article, although I do agree that most of the references in the article only covers his political campaign, so I will work on finding more sources which covers other agenda as well. I just thought it would be helpful for Wikipedia if I create an article of someone who is well-known personality to Nepali people, any amount of time I get to improve this article would be appreciated. Krishna Dahal (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Not really notable person, just a candidate. Can incubate in draft till he is notable. Less chances of his win.JayMithila (talk)
Delete drafted article would be good option rather then this. Fade258 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would work for me as well, as long as one of the articles doesn't get deleted. Drafted one or one on the main page, one of them should stay in main space. Krishna Dahal (talk) 23:03, 5 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.

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. Technically ineligible but zero input and no one contesting the deletion. I see no reason to relist this a 3rd time when there's no indication that's going to change. Star Mississippi 01:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Grace

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND. He's rubbed elbows with a few big names, but gained no notability from it. Current sourcing is all passing mentions, interviews, and other assorted cherrypicking. No better sources found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:52, 15 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.

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. ✗plicit 03:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overtone (musical group)

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

They've done a lot, but nothing that seems to pass WP:BAND. Current sources are all promotional or primary. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's just about enough here to meet WP:GNG with this, this, and this. Frankly I really don't see how deleting this would benefit Wikipedia's readers given an article has already been written with no obvious problems and said article has received over 400 views in the past month. NemesisAT (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't made my mind up yet about the article, but I'm not sure if any of the links you've provided would qualify as WP:RS. Park3r (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criterion 10 of WP:BAND, having performed half the soundtrack of Invictus in tandem with a small amount of coverage, mostly related to the group's connection with the Eastwoods 1 2 3 4 5. It's not mentioned in the article, but the band were also stars of Mrs. Eastwood & Company. All of those separately would not qualify this group for its own article, but put all together, I'm inclined to keep. That being said, the article needs serious work. Lkb335 (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:BAND. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets MUSICBIO. Sources are adequate. Samanthany (talk) 01:15, 21 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.

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shueh-li Ong

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

Fails WP:GNG. All I found was this ref. Jsfodness (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Singapore, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see several sources here but I don't have access to most of them. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll vote Keep based on the source presented below, as well as other news articles that I now have access to, such as Not happy? They just make their own instruments, Sisters do it for themselves, Calling the (classical) tunes / Rare performance and Shriek and sing, which all give her significant coverage. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~: Found a replication of a news article here of Theremin quintet set to boggle ears in the 4 June 2010 of The Business Times by CHRISTOPHER LIM. Based on the headlines and small preview found in the digitised newspapers (the mainstream media of Singapore) in the National Library Board of Singapore, there might be enough to pass GNG. -- Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Found some sources online which are behind a subscription. I had since updated them into the article and the article should pass GNG. For anyone who likes to verify them, I will email the pdf copy as requested. (1) News article Not happy? They just make their own instruments - Article covering Ong and Electric Muse prior to their performance at the Singapore International Festival of Arts in 1999. (2) News article Going High Tech - Article covering Singaporean artists, covers Ong in about 3 paragraphs. (3) News article Shriek and sing - Article covering Ong before her 3 nights concert in Singapore in 2008. :Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 16 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.

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. Speedy deleted by ReaderofthePack: CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big Trip

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

Not notable as per WP:NM. Might be WP:UPANDCOMING, but for now, this seems to fall under the notability guidelines. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 30 April 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.

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. While there was an early slate of delete !votes, none returned to clarify whether those still held true after the sources were identified, and those sources countered those that simply said they didn't meet GNG Star Mississippi 16:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guchi (musician)

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

Promotional paid job on a non notable WP:TOOSOON Nigerian musician who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them and do not meet any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. I’m an expert on Nigerian sources and I can expressly state that sourcing is absent in this article. Furthermore the article creator has been indicted in deliberately adding falsehood in their articles which was first spotted by Praxidicae & Timtrent. Please see AFD & this AFD. They are intentionally adding falsehood in their articles perhaps hoping it gets undetected. Celestina007 (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Nigeria, and United States of America. Celestina007 (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Absolutely no notability, except, presumably, to their friends. Nominees are not winners. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my !vote entirely. I will analyse further sources before reaching a further conclusion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I believe in Celestina007’s judgement on sources but these lined up sources tends to change my mind. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 17:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Those sources "you all lined up" are all press releases, which is churnslism, can you show any sources that satisfy RS? That is, that discusses the subject in in-depth significant coverage. Celestina007 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: When I see musicians getting best new artist nomination less than 12 months ago, it is usually a case of WP:TOOSOON. Although neutral, but tending towards delete than a keep. I can expatiate further if need be. HandsomeBoy (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Even though it is probably WP:TOOSOON, I have to say that nomination is one of the WP:NMUSICIAN aspects, as it states in point 8 of Criteria for musicians and ensembles that it needs to have won or been nominated to a major award. I am not familiar enough to the awards scene in Nigeria as to say if those listed are the major awards or not. Pazguillermo (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Note to the closing admin that no editor here has provided any reliable sources, what has been provided are press releases and mere mentions and nothing in-depth that discusses the subject of the article in significant coverage. Celestina007 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero GNG type sources and does not meet SNG criteria. As a result near-zero content. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, as others have said. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC - before this article was nominated for deletion, a variety of sources were removed from the article [7], [8], including sources listed at the Wikiproject Africa Sources List, e.g.:

"NDLEA unveils Guchi as anti-drug ambassador". The Nation Newspaper. Retrieved 26 January 2020.
"Many Nigerian pop stars are yet to find their sounds — Guchi". Vanguard Newspaper. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
"My song preaches true and genuine love –Guchi". The Punch Newspaper. Retrieved 4 May 2019.
"GUCHI: Abuja showed me love but Lagos is better". The Nation Newspaper. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
"Why I'm still single –Gucci, singer". The Sun Newspaper. Retrieved 10 November 2019.

The Google search pointed to by Reading Beans shows further coverage from sources listed at WP:AFSL and WP:NGRS, e.g.

Guchi, Afropop singer seals ambassadorial deal with NDLEA (Vanguard, 2020)
Guchi blazes with ‘No Be Jazzy’ (Vanguard, 2019)
Guchi: Africa's breakout star of the post-pandemic era (Pulse, 2021)
#Shedibalala challenge, Guchi, others blow up TikTok (PM News, 2021)
Here are the top 10 Nigerian artists to watch in 2022 (Pulse, 2022)

Beccaynr (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following the work above to identify sources by Beccaynr and analysys of those sources I find her just to be the right side of the borderline. The references are "just strong enough" so better references will be more useful. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Beccaynr's rationale, and sources. I am more concerned about Celestina's removal of content, and sources here. They removed entire section of "early life" (RS sourced), with edit summary "promotional". There were two promotional sentences, no need to remove entire section. They also removed some other sourced content with edit summary "false", thats unacceptable behaviour. The diffs to these edits have provided above by Beccaynr. Celestina also removed the section "Events performed" with summary "promotional to". This is a very common section for articles of musician. It was unsourced, but not promotional. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
update: I was on mobile when I posted my previous comment. In this edit, they removed the entire section of "early life" which was sourced, with edit summary "promotional material". There were two-three semi-promotional sentences, which should have been removed. Removing entire section was not called for. In this edit they removed the section "Events permormed" with summary "promotional to". However, the most concerning removal is this one, where they removed In 2020, she [Guchi] was granted as an ambassadorship for the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA). A simple search "guchi anti drug ambassador" gives a lot of sources corroborating the claim. I am not sure why Celestina007 removed it. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have just edited the article based on a re-examination of the version before the nominator's removals, adding material from existing sources and from one of the sources listed above by Beccaynr, Pulse (which supported some unsourced statements and enabled me to bring the account of her career up to date as of November 2021; the prose was otherwise stuck in early 2019. I did find unreferenced material that I had to remove, including her middle name and birthdate, and I threw out both articles in The Sun Nigeria, which appears to be affiliated with the British tabloid and in my judgement is therefore not an acceptable source—but everything was citable from other sources. The article was not very promotional in style, and the amplitude of coverage in the Nigerian press, its continuing for years after her debut song, and her getting a Top 10 Billboard chart position in my view are sufficient indications of notability. I restored the notability tag since the article is at AfD, but it's traditional to remove that when an article is kept. Many thanks to Beccaynr for lining up sources; I may come back to add more. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:BEFORE work done by User:Beccaynr. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 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.

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Wayz

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

~~Unable to find enough resources in published reliable sources. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)~~Blocked sock Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Music. DMySon (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's reporting on her from The New Times and so I added it in and she seems like a notable musician in Rwanda. 11:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The above comment was by me at 11:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC). CT55555 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Delete nothing more than paid for vanity spam. Merely having your name appear in a notable publication doesn't make it inherently reliable, doubly so when said publications take pay for publication without disclosure. The sourcing is weak and there isn't anything better to be found. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request on my Talk, I have reverted my close, restored the article and am relisting for further discussion as to whether The New Times content is editorial or promotional.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I've just realized/remembered, the nominator is sock blocked so I should have relisted this regardless of the query on my Talk. Apologies. Star Mississippi 17:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I already !voted keep above) I think this hinges on if The New Times is a reliable source. I honestly don't know. Here's what I can ascertain:

It's the first listed newspapers on BBC for Rwanda newspapers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14093244
The Wikipedia article and the BBC note it's proximity to government
Of course, plenty reliable sources are proximate to government, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, although I would suggest The New Times is not a reliable source for Rwandan politics.
The Wikipedia WP:RSPSS noticeboard is silent on The New Times. A search of the archive reveals nothing.

So my question is: does anyone have any evidence, any reason to assume it's a bad source? CT55555 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She has a good career as a musician being both a solo artist and the lead vocalist of a band, and being reported by The New Times is very remarkable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:22, 15 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.

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 05:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cera Palin

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

Might be a bit of a stretch which is why I brought this here first. Article is already tagged as a stub but I'm not entirely sure there's much to expand with. The four sources that were present (one that I've removed because it was definitely no good, another which appears not to be a publication) were all added in 2020, and there are only two more I can find that might be worth adding. The lack of continuing coverage doesn't give me much hope for this article expanding any further or even passing the notability test, but I'm not 100% on whether being a stub excuses any of this or whatever so here's for a second opinion. If anything, perhaps this should get draftified so we can expand with whatever we've got and see how it looks after that. QuietHere (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 30 April 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.

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 per User:pburka's rationale. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Temple

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

Non notable band that fails to meet WP:BAND and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Celestina007 (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and New York. Celestina007 (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are still an indie band, but they are growing. They have released two albums and sevens singles. They have been mentioned in magazines such as Revolver and LA Times. Alex Jones and Infowars also did an entire segment about them. They are gaining quite the following around the world, and they are also forming their own musical style.

I have no affiliation with the band, with the soul exception of having heard and read about them recently and was surprised that there was no entry about them on Wikipedia.

They also have over a million listeners on Spotify.

I do believe they live up to Wikipedia’s requirements for being notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicStr (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND, and even some of the claims of notability made in the article aren't supported by linked sources (article says Alex Jones devoted an entire episode, but one link says it was a segment, and another just says they got his attention. -fuzzy510 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO they at least qualify for point #7: “Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city.”

They have invented their own genre, which makes them unique and culturally interesting. At least interesting enough for being picked up by LA Times, Revolver Magazine, and Metalhammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicStr (talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like they pass WP:GNG, e.g. Metal Hammer, Grimy Goods, Outburn, Orlando Weekly, Beaver County Times. I haven't followed goth rock in years, but this seems like significant coverage to me. pburka (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been up for almost three weeks now. I think it’s longer AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicStr (talk • contribs) 00:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are a few bits of coverage, there still isn't enough to solidify notability as there are no sources that the band have made the charts for their songs or albums. Fails to meet WP:BAND. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What about WP:NBAND#1? They don't need to chart if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works. pburka (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You make a good point and you are right, if there are multiple coverage, then I suppose it'll suffice - even if there is a few to back it. It should still be enough so in that case, I'll change to Keep. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:58, 20 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.

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. Technically ineligible, but this has run two weeks without anyone contesting deletion and I don't see an additional relist bringing input Star Mississippi 16:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Adrian White

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

Has collaborated with many artists, but not notable on his own. Deprodded right under the wire due to previous prod in 2010 that Twinkle didn't catch. Zero sources found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero sources found. Only ref is a Music Brainz link. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:26, 7 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayumi Kameda

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

Does not seem to be notable due to lack of good sources. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I searched for her name in kanji on the Japanese web and a couple of items popped up, including a very fine recital from 1998, but no coverage from notable sources. It did appear, however, that she may have contributed occasionally to Chopin, a notable Japanese piano magazine. Her married name turns up few more things, including this Swiss article. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Cleveland International Piano Competition, in which she came 2nd in 1983, is a fairly well known international competition, which I think would meet "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition" from WP:MUSICBIO, and is sourced independently. @CurryTime7-24: I can't access the article linked above; what is the married name? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her married name is Mayumi Kameda-Balet. She married her duo partner. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like she spent much of her career in Switzerland, where she taught at the Conservatoire de Musique de Genève (presumably now retired); notable students include Mélodie Zhao [9] (mentioned in Zhao's article). She was on the pre-selection jury of the Geneva International Competition Piano & Flute in 2014 [10] and on the jury of the Épinal International Piano Competition (which she won in 1981) in 2021, with a decent bio: [11], which states she performed as a soloist with several orchestras, as well as touring internationally in the duo with Balet. Another bio [12] with lots more details. BNF entry [13] gives year and place of birth. WorldCat lists several recordings mainly in the 1990s: [14]

All the sources I'm seeing for the married name are in French; the Japanese/French language barrier may be working against us; also her major career looks to have been in the 1980s/90s, ie pre-internet. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of concert in Singapore published in The Straits Times on 23 August 2012 (courtesy link: [15]), apparently Singapore premiere of the four-handed version of the Rite of Spring. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict. --hroest 20:22, 9 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.

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. I ignored the sockpuppet !vote. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Preece

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

Lengthy (apparently self) promotional article. No hint of notability per guidelines. agtx 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also cannot find any WP:RS covering the subject. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I agree it’s tone is self-promotional, reads like WP:RESUME. Non-notable individual with insufficient sourcing to meet the standard for an article. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion with most sources being his own website. No songs that charted, no awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a promotion. Notability is not establishing from available references. DMySon (talk) 11:09, 30 April 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.

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. ✗plicit 08:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Pete Walter Band

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

Non-notable band. Nothing like significant coverage. Article orphaned for at least ten years. PepperBeast (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no proof of notability, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Every source cited is now a broken link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 6 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.

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 The Vibrations. ✗plicit 23:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Owens

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

Non-notable The Temptations member that fails WP:SINGER, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, California, and Missouri. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have no sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Vibrations as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Vibrations, as his primary achievements are with them. Someone may have considered him to be eligible for his own article because he was also with the Temptations, but he was only with them for two gigs and his short tenure is already covered at their article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Vibrations. I do agree with this. His history as a Temptation is not so much. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 14:28, 1 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.

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 Academy Award for Best Visual Effects#1940s. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Hall (sound engineer)

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

He fails WP:BIO. Current sourcing is a brief mention in the 1942 Academy Awards nominations list. He did not win. Before search finds no significant coverage. Apparently sound engineers do not generate much coverage. One award nomination does not establish notability. Gab4gab (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable to me as he would meet WP:CREATIVE#4 (c), "Won significant critical attention" as a Oscar nominee. If not then Redirect to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects#1940s per Lugnuts. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I must disagree with the previous voter on WP:CREATIVE#4 (c), because one single nomination may not be "significant" enough for Wikipedia's purposes if there is nothing else to say about the individual. With a lot of other John Hall's in the world, I can't find information about this gentleman beyond the fact that he was nominated for an award in 1942. Can we find his date of birth, his hometown, his accomplishments before and after 1942, or anything else? If anyone can find anything in old books I'd be happy to change my vote, but per WP:SPEAKSELF I see no use in an encyclopedic article that says nothing beyond how a man of this name once got an award nomination. Also, his nomination was in 1942, but the article's infobox says his career started in 1949, again indicating how little there is to find about the gentleman. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MoviesandTelevisionFan and WP:ANYBIO, or worst case, redirect to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects#1940s per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It causes some confusion when editors claim an article passes a criteria when it clearly does not. One nomination doesn't pass the criteria at Anybio which is looking for several. Beter to say: "It does not pass but I think it should." The case for his work having "won significant critical attention" based on the single Academy Award nomination for Best Visual Effects (sound) is not convincing. I doubt that every Best Visual Effects (sound) nominee receives the significant critical attention criteria 4(c) is looking for. There were 10 nominations in that category in 1941, multiples for some names. In some years there were more than a dozen. I doubt much in-depth coverage is generated for them compared to Best Actress or Best Film. In this case the best reliable coverage identified is his name in the list of nominees. I have no objection to redirecting to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects#1940s. Gab4gab (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects#1940s per WP:PRESERVE and Lugnuts. I am not convinced that WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE are met just because of the nomination. If he won, that would be different. Sound engineers don't usually get much coverage regardless of the good work they do. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I voted to delete above, but to prevent the article from ending up in "no consensus" purgatory I can support the suggested redirect as well. That redirect was also suggested as an alternative by the "keep" voters. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect we clearly do not have enough sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 6 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.

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azaan Sami Khan

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

Contested draftification, or a unilateral move after draftification by another editor who misunderstands the notability criteria. My instinct would be to draftily again, but that would be move warring. WP:IAR does not apply here, so we are at AfD. Fails WP:NACTOR/WP:NMUSICIAN. References, while in ostensibly reliable sources, are pure churnalism. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, and Pakistan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nominator noted, fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NACTOR. Ravensfire (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly misses Wikipedia guidelines. Edward Saxston (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and there's no indication of any subjective criteria being met either. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the article indicates that he satisfies general notability, musical notability, or acting notability. This page was moved from article space to draft space by a reviewer, but was then moved back to article space. It still isn't ready for article space, probably because the subject is too soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 30 April 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.

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 12:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avitesh Shrivastava

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

He has released a single, however he does not meet WP:SINGER. He is making his film debut, however it is in production. Parents are notable, however independently WP:GNG is not satisfied. Jay (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 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.

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. ✗plicit 03:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Iurato

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

Mauro Iurato does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only source cited in the article (presented as an external link rather than a reference) is a page on his own web site, and my searches have not turned up any substantial coverage in any independent source. (The article was originally draftified as not ready, but the author re-created it as an article. It was tagged for A7 speedy deletion, but I have declined that, as I think it does have enough assertion of significance to invalidate that criterion. The conflict of interest guideline appears to apply to the author of the article.) JBW (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is the editor of Mauro Iurato article. I am sorry for taking your time but please let me explain. Firstly, I wanted to published this article as translation from Japanese Wikipedia, so information source should be enough. I tried but I could not publish translation, may be because my account is too new, so I planed to published in English Wikipedia first, then link to the Japanese one.

I am sorry again for making this case more complicated, but I think the source should be enough because the contents mean same as it in Japanese version. H. Kobe (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this article does not passes WP:BASIC if you have more Japanese references please add. JoyStick101 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I need to put more than one reliable information source, don't I?

I put a URL about TED event. Isn't it reliable enough? H. Kobe (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO JoyStick101 (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I managed to find and link the Jpwiki article. gidonb (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing and reads like his CV. I find nothing to show he's notable. I get one hit in a German book, nothing else. Oaktree b (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found some coverage in Japanese sources that do not appear independent. Tag me if you found good sources. The text does have problems. gidonb (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find anything worthwhile that adds to the discussion, it looks like WP:RESUME/WP:PROMO Jacona (talk) 01:57, 11 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.

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!} 05:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marica Linn

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

I've declined a WP:A7 request on this as it does contain credible claims of significance, but this is clearly not appropriate for a biography of a living person. What sources there are are to unreliable sources, and there doesn't appear to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to construct a viable article. ‑ Iridescent 06:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. ‑ Iridescent 06:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity spam. Any award she's won in a non-notable competition isn't notable and her singles haven't charted. Oaktree b (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lack of indepth third party coverage and winner of non-notable awards. AmirŞah 20:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional vanity article. The awards are completely non-notable. Also, please note the SLR sources on the article are paid for; the promotional packages they offer can be found on their website here. --Kbabej (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - paid-for coverage doesn't make someone notable Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage or indication of notability. JSFarman (talk) 00:28, 29 April 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.

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. ✗plicit 23:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Northrup

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

This article fails WP:GNG and relies on non-notable sources like corporate and institutional blogs and press releases. It's also written in a plainly promotional tone. — Mainly 01:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Mainly 02:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mainly 02:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mainly 02:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This feels pretty cut-and-dry promotional to me. PureRED | talk to me | 02:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a lawyer and the musical career seems even less so. Motion to dismiss? That's showbiz. Oaktree b (talk) 18:33, 10 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.

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. Didn't notice the sources added. Good work, @NemesisAT: (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Murdock

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

Fails WP:BAND. Has worked with a few artists but isn't notable on his own. Zero sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added three newspaper articles, two of which focus on Murdock. NemesisAT (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:48, 10 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.

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. Consensus is the subject appears to be notable. I will revert per consensus. Further discussion on improving the article can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 14:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Everything

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

Delete WP:COI with no references to support any of the claims made in the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Quebec. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know how I can add references. This is all accurate information coming from the original source, me.

I copied my edits based on another musicians and they had no references on their discography so I thought it was ok.

Also let me know how many references I need to put for my article to be valid. Thanks. Fredeverything (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred, the lack of references, which need to be reliable third party sources, isn't the only problem - there's also the fact that this is extremely promotional in tone. Wikipedia isn't a place to post promotional material, it's an encyclopedia and needs to be written from a neutral point of view. This is why you shouldn't write articles about yourself. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I found someone to help out. This was my bio posted. It wasn't intended to be a promotional tool, I just wanted to make sure things were more accurate/up to date and I didn't take the time to learn more about the nature of the site. I apologize. In case of Discography, how can someone reference that to be accurate? Is there a way to stop the deletion process to make it easier for us to edit in a proper manner? Thanks for your time. Fredeverything (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a prior version in the page history which has been overwritten with the COI version. The references are now mostly broken though. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently there is a single RS reference from 20 years ago in the San Jose Mercury News, but the link is broken to verify if is third party. But there needs to be more than a single source to establish notability. I'm leaning delete, but want to give this guy a fair chance to present more examples of third party recognition. I'm also bothered by the promotional tone of the updated edits. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick google search I found these two and suspect there are more out there. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As I mentioned, I didn't do enough research before I did my edits. I'm not the one who started the page and I just wanted it be more accurate. I will comply and send the proper reference. Thanks. Fredeverything (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a test with a reference in the first line. Let me know If that's ok. If so, I can get someone to rewrite the article with the proper references and also making this more neutral. Let me know if this works. Thanks Fredeverything (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh Boy. This looks like a copyvio from his SoundCloud page as well. I find one review/interview with NPR [16]. Bunch of minor mentions in the Montreal Gazette, not sure notability has been met. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can type in : Deep House Producers in Google and my photo appears as third so I don't think it's a question of notability here. I can appreciate that you didn't find any press links but I would be happy to correct that. Thanks Fredeverything (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to a version from 2021 and clean up that one - The article has existed since 2007, and until recently it was a fairly respectable stub article thanks to some reviews Mr. Everything has received (e.g. [17]), and some useful info at AllMusic ([18]). In March 2022, Mr. Everything himself appeared with the goal of adding updates, but despite good faith intentions, turned the article into a giant reproduction of his own promotional and social media sites. That's not what Wikipedia is for and you're not allowed to write about yourself. The late 2021 version of the article might be salvageable if it is cleaned up, because Mr. Everything does have some coverage from more reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've taken note of what everyone has said and acknowledged my wrong doings and ignorance as far as how the site works. Now I'm trying to clean up what I did and add references. I have someone who will help me with this but I need a bit of time. Hopefully by next week it could be a decent page again. Also, it would be very difficult for anyone else but me to come up with the exact discography.Discogs isn't even up to date with it. Fredeverything (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we take the last acceptable article, before I pasted my bio BUT we keep the Box with the newer photo (I can reference the photographer) and the additional things in there like Aliases, etc... + My updated discography. Could that work? I just want to make things right and according to the site's policies as well as having an up to date article. Let me know. Thanks! Fredeverything (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revert: There does seem to be enough coverage for our good friend Mr. Blais here to at least establish baseline notability. The fact that it has been disturbed with some puffery and COI does not change that. A very basic Google search brings up some mentions in Billboard, a review in MusicRadar [19], the San Jose Mercury News, NPR [20], Forbes [21], a review in HX Magazine [22], Mixmag [23], and from my small parsing, I believe there are even more sources that can prove notability. Revert the article, fix up the sources, and then if it still isn't believed to meet the notability requirements, start another AfD. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an entry in DJ Mag [24] and in Decoded [25] Why? I Ask (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help. I really appreciate it. It seems by trying to improve something, I made a big mistake! 96.22.164.27 (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revert - I'm sure Fred Everything is not being smacked but just didn't know how Wikipedia works. Don't feel that you should stop trying. Sometimes it's easy to think that one may have a vested interest in an article but it was in good faith. Revert to the original and if there are changes that are properly cited with reliable sources then have at it. Pmedema (talk) 12:39, 3 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.

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 23:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Americans

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

Article about a band, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only real notability claim being attempted here is of the "got X views on YouTube" variety, which is not part of our inclusion criteria for musical artists at all, and the article otherwise amounts to "they exist" -- but when it comes to the sourcing, two of the five footnotes are the band's own self-published marketing materials from their record label and their public relations agent (which are not support for notability), one is a user-generated platform (which is not support for notability), and two are purely local media coverage in their own hometown media market in purely local-interest contexts (the robbery of the bandleader's home studio and a piece of "local band releases song"), with no strong evidence of wider nationalizing coverage. And even on a Google search for other sources, I'm not finding anything particularly strong: just blogs, Q&A interviews in which the band members are talking about themselves in the first person, and glancing namechecks of their existence in coverage of other things or people, with nothing solid enough to turn the tide.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they actually accomplish something that passes NMUSIC and garner the reliable source coverage to match, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced better than this.
(Also worth noting that it was first created by an editor who's been cross-wiki blocked for sockpuppeteering and persistently violating copyright by copy-pasting content directly from primary sources, thus implying a strong possibility of paid WP:COI editing.) Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and British Columbia. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of passing WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:24, 3 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.

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. ✗plicit 14:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles about Taylor Swift

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

Sorry Fram but I'm stealing your reasoning. Recently, a number of similar articles have been created, and I'm unclear whether they are a good idea. We already have categories for these, they are not a notable topic as a group, they are not a set index (as described at Wikipedia:Set index articles), and we could have a nearly endless supply of such lists. Not to mention these are all already linked on their main articles.

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles about Cameron Diaz PRAXIDICAE💕 15:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. While these are slightly better than the Cameron Diaz one, it makes little sense to e.g. create such a list for Kylie Minogue, and then add it as "related articles" to an already existing, better template with all these articles[26]. The same has been done for e.g. Pretty Little Liars[27]. In general, if there aren't too many articles, the main artcle + category + search bar are sufficient: if there are more articles, usually a navigational template already exists. Fram (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Articles in these are included in the main articles' infoboxes, their bodies, and navigation templates. There is no need for separate articles to compile such links. Reywas92^Talk 16:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for the reasons stated by Fram above. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Pointless and redundant to categories and navboxes that do the same thing better. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, clearly a poor-man's attempt at a portal and portals are a contentious idea as it is. Navigational templates and categories already do the trick, as do established subpage formats such as "X discography", "X videography", and "List of songs written by X". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, for the reasons already given. Athel cb (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. There is a reason we have categories and navbox templates is so we don't need unnecessary list articles like this. Ajf773 (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per reasoning provided the discussion above. Not much different than this "Listography" AfD a couple years back. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. There are a number of other List of articles about pages that have been created prior to these ones, for example List of articles about Australia and New Zealand jointly. So, I don't understand why these are not worthy of creation, as in Michael Jackson, Madonna and Kylie Minogue's example, as these people have several articles related to them, and in my experience category pages (like Category:Michael Jackson, Category:Madonna and Category:Kylie Minogue) have often been messy and filled with other articles that don't directly link to the person themselves. Basically, I think of these ones I've created for Michael Jackson, Madonna and Kylie Minogue as neat versions of their respective Category articles. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a much broader subject matter and highly relevant. Every individual, particularly in entertainment does not need a list like this as it's all linked in the template already. This is nothing short of disruption. PRAXIDICAE💕 22:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as others mentioned, navboxes and categories serve this role perfectly fine. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete all after a quick check that the articles and/or navboxes include all/important links from the lists — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These can either be linked by categories, or in some cases by on the main article creating links to other relevant articles. There is no need for this "lists of articles about x" type of page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The articles were all created recently by Samuelloveslennonstella, who perhaps saw a gap in Wikipedia's organization of articles. Kudos for your interest in helping out, but all of these new list articles are a solution to a problem that does not exist, and they just add clutter. As noted by everyone above, Wikipedia is already equipped with various types of categories, templates, and navigation boxes that serve this purpose. If you think those are deficient in some fashion, start discussions in the proper places to suggest improvements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason we have a rash of index type articles in the past few years.....is that 60+% (mobile users) don't see nav templates or categories..... thus most don't see any navigational aid. Wish this could be fixed and reasons for deletion actually bsesd on user reality. Moxy- 02:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Redundant with the categories and the templates. No added value beyond. No objection to redirects to the templates, would someone be so inclined. gidonb (talk) 20:05, 1 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.

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!} 04:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Dammit

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

Struggling to find any sources covering this WP:BLP. Possibly there are sources out there, but they were never provided in the article and without them, the article does not meet WP:GNG. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Professional associations with notable musicians does not make one notable. Outside of his connections, there are no RS that are about this guy independently. His AllMusic page is just a list of credits. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual with insufficient sourcing to meet the standard for an article. Reads like WP:RESUME. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:53, 29 April 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.

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 12:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic Liquid Culture

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

I don't believe this meets any MP:MUSIC requirements outside possibly #6, and even that's a stretch. AuroraAlexander77 (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Arizona. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After looking them up myself I've found very limited results. Wikipedia Article sources are almost entirely dedicated to just... albums the band made or label deals made, but seemingly absolutely no indication of notability (reviews from third party independent sources, sales data, etc). It seems like ELC was a side project for some of the band members, so a possible Merge into their pages or similar approach would be warranted? A MINOTAUR (talk) 02:36, 9 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.

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!} 05:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Scorseses

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

Non-notable musical group. Lacking significant coverage PepperBeast (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Louisiana. PepperBeast (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd.

Logs: 2011-04 ✗ PROD

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all criteria of WP:NMUSIC. I was thinking maybe it could pass by virtue of having released two albums on a major label (criterion 5), but it seems that their ungoogleable first album, Magnumopus, was self-released, as on iTunes it is copyright "The Scorceses LLC." I'll note that, by virtue of the name of this band, it is quite hard to find any coverage, particularly WP:RS. Lkb335 (talk) 14:02, 1 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.

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. Star Mississippi 13:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Party Fouls

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

No indication that this band is notable. PepperBeast (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. PepperBeast (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing at all to indicate this band ever went anywhere, no WP:RS, fails WP:NMUSIC. (That first album didn't go far, I guess.) Tony Fox (arf!) 03:06, 24 April 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.

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 merge to Chris Wade (writer). MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodson and Fogg

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

This is the page for a musical project. While it has had several well-known guest musicians, and has produced a prolific catalogue of music, it doesn't seem to have garnered any media coverage beyond a handful of reviews in minor publications and the occasional play on specialist music shows. I can't find anything that would satisfy the criteria listed at WP:BAND. As an AtD, the page could conceivably be redirected to the page for its founder member Chris Wade (writer), although that page also has questionable notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Chris Wade (writer); the band gets a lot of mentions, along the lines of "Chris Wade's eclectic music project" and so forth, but nothing independent seems to be out there. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per TF (above) and ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:09, 1 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.

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. ✗plicit 01:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leinender

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

Musician/DJ without significant coverage. Not notable. PepperBeast (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. PepperBeast (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Storchy (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient sourcing to pass the WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. None of the current references in the article are from reliable sources, and searches did not turn up anything else. Rorshacma (talk) 00:34, 11 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Szibilla Margó Bakó

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

I cannot find any sources to show notability for this artist. It was created in 2011 and now is out of date with dead links. The current sources are primary, with one of the sources being a Facebook page and the other failing verification. There does not seem to be a way to bring this up to notable. Perhaps someone who speak Hungarian can find that there are some awards or charting. She seems to be a visual artist and musician. I think the article should be deleted. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I changed my search settings to Hungarian and found one interview, so of course mostly primary, but some secondary content. It's a music blog, so not the worst, but hardly the best. I also found a book that she wrote or translated and added that in. It's not solving the issues raised, but it does leave the article in slightly better shape. CT55555 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Journalism, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see what would elevate her above the average blogger. Nowhere near WP:SIGCOV.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a list of PRESS items on her website here, however I am unable to determine the quality of these possible sources. What we need is an editor fluent in Hungarian and the cultural scene there. Anyone know of possible editors we might ping? My gut feeling is that she may be notable. Netherzone (talk) 22:38, 11 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.

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:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 12:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fa11on

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

Doesn't appear to be notable in her own right. Article is a BLP nightmare. Unbh (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. _signed,511KeV ^(talk) 11:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 6 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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arunita Kanjilal

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

GNG not met. The subject comes after Pawandeep Rajan, which was recently redirected to Indian Idol 12 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pawandeep Rajan. Suggesting a redirect but inviting community discussion for more clarity. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and India. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the argument for deletion, happy to fix it. All irrelevant references will be removed. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : Fixed encyclopedic references and multiple references. This article was clean earlier, removed unecessary references. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP :~~ Added notable e-Patrika (newspaper) publication inviting the subject as guest editor on their e-paper. https://epaper.patrika.com/imageview_535372_1763729408_4_78_17-04-2022_4_i_1_sf.html

Significant independent published work of the subject meeting the notability (music) criteria of "to include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" Musicwikilover (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources is helpful in establishing notability. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the e-Patrika (newspaper publication). It is a significant independent publication. Hope this source has been checked before the claim that none of sources establish notability. Musicwikilover (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack WP:RS. Besides that, its WP:TOOSOON case. -Hatchens (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I don't think it was necessary to open this discussion. She is notable and source are reliable. Montubhai (talk) 2:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Montubhai, How do you feel she is notable? Most of the sources cited are unreliable and puff, others don't have significant coverage. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable , the sources are reliable Indian publications including the independent e-newspapers where she was invited as guest editor. Musicwikilover (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
being invited as a guest editor doesn't make someone notable. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sir -

As per below - The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.
WP:NEXIST , WP:NPOSSIBLE

I would suggest to search for sources rather than just propose for deletion as indicated above.

Also , as I said the independent e-newspaper publication from a State of India asked the subject to be their editor for a day is surely notable for me. There is no affiliation of the subject with the said publication. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be notable, one needs to either pass the WP:GNG criteria or any WP:SNG criteria and the subject passes none of these. I agree a plenty of coverage exists but it doesn't meet the guidelines such as WP:SIGCOV, WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RS. That's to say, someone doesn't become notable if they receive some advertorial and routine coverage. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the main problem is with respect to WP:SIGCOV and even with WP:RS here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS6784 (talk • contribs)
Delete Lacks coverage. Looked at the first five references. Very poor, no specifically about her, mostly about the competitions. No other reliable coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps too soon, but currently non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:04, 2 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.

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. Consensus is the prize he won does not establish notability, nor does sourcing. I don't see a 3rd relist changing this, but happy to consider this a soft deletion given relatively minimal input. Star Mississippi 02:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Reid Williams

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

Non-notable musician. Claims to fame are greatly exaggerated and/or do not pass WP:BAND. Sourcing is WP:PRIMARY or passing name-drops. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Isn't winning a major music competition enough to justify notability per WP:MUSICBIO #9? I believe other sources could likely be found, but am happy to be proven wrong. Sean Stephens (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that one is considered "major". It doesn't have an article or even have a website anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a major music award called the Wihuri Sibelius Prize, but Mr. Williams won a different one called simply "Sibelius Prize (previously known as the Overall Prize)" which does not meet the requirements of a major award seen at WP:NMUSICBIO, criteria #8-9. I wonder if the organizers (re-)named this competition after a famous musician just to make it look more important. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mr. Williams has built a career as a session musician and songwriter for others, while occasionally releasing his own music, but unfortunately that keeps him a few steps away from independent notability in his own right. Also note that notability is not inherited from the notable people that he has backed. He has a few awards but they don't appear to be "major" (see the discussion above). As a trusty journeyman musician, he has made his mark behind the scenes but there's just not enough for his own encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 6 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.

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. If notable this can be recreated from reliable sourcing but there is clear consensus this isn't salvageable so putting it in draft would be a bad start. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GONN

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

All of the sources are just the band's own material or other primary sources. The hall of fame into which they were inducted is not a notable entity. Searching for "Gonn" + various members or "Gonn" + "Blackout of Gretely" turned up nothing whatsoever on GNews, GBooks, World Radio History, or Newspapers.com. This article is so overblown in making the band seem way more active than it is that if I'm in the wrong about their notability, WP:TNT would be required. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iowa. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's a lot of sound here, but it doesn't really say much at all. I can't find any independent sources referring to any of this - the song crops up frequently, but there's no discussion or analysis surrounding it. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 18:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - besides the Iowa R&R HOF, which isn't notable but I have no reason to believe unreliable, there's significant coverage in a foreign language in this book, and coverage in the following books from the Internet Archive: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. [33] seems to indicate the band had some substantial influence, plus additional coverage [34]. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My browser hangs when I try to load those. Could you please add those to the article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I agree with TPH that the article is overblown, and needs trimming to what meets WP:V and is of encyclopedic value. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom: The notability of a subject is not advanced through blogs. Rather a large amount of content for blogs likely means the article is currently sourced through sites in the "External links". The first source I checked (google.de/books/edition/Garage_rock) splashed that I have reached the end of the viewing. When notability is questioned there is a misconception that splashing a lot of sources like "significant coverage in a foreign language" satisfies sourcing requirement. I see this all the time. WP:BURDEN states: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an WP:inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. We could tag the article and every line, fill the article up with tags, then start deleting unsourced material, if that is deemed a better direction --- or --- someone with more interest could jump in a perform a HEY. The other option is to delete this mess and maybe someone later may find sources to advance notability and put them in the article so the information can be verified as also not being original research copyright issues, or plagiarism. How about this; "Lenny Kaye told Craig Moore in person at a Patti Smith Group concert that "Blackout of Gretely" would have been included on the original Nuggets#1: Original Artyfacts From The First Psychedelic Era 1965-1968 double LP in 1972 except that it was too long." This looks suspiciously like unsourced quoting being reworded and only supported by "Rex Garrett's comments, liner notes, Gonn with the Wind". Mr. Garrett's possibly having directly heard the conversation between Lenny Kaye and Craig Moore does not mean it is applicable to be a reliable source. Although the talk page is missing the template it should be noted that the article in BLP related (a lot of names are used in the article and some are likely still living) which means we should err on the side of requiring the proper sourcing on the article and not a talk page or an AFD discussion to be filed away by time. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to draft per 78.26’s comment. While I’m unable to check their archive links atm, but they should be enough for notability. But of course having an article in this sorry state in the mainspace isn’t ideal, so it should get turned into a draft until its problems are solved MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 19:14, 5 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.

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. Consensus that editing subsequent to the nomination establishes notability. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ericdoa

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

Ericdoa

Musical artist and record producer who does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. This article has tone problems and appears to have been written to praise or promote its subject The sources have not yet been checked, but an article should speak for itself and explain what notability criterion is satisfied, and this article does not. The typo in the lede sentence as to the subject's date of birth (saying 2007, as opposed to the 2002 in the infobox) is evidence of sloppiness and haste. A previous article on the subject was deleted as G11, and the originator may have been in a hurry to get a new article listed. The good-faith explanation may be that the author is an ultra, an enthusiastic fan.

The author has simultaneously created this page in article space and draft space, which may be intended to game the system by preventing draftifying the article. It doesn't prevent nominating the article for deletion as not meeting either musical notability guidelines or general notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by "musical notability"? Ericdoa is an artist that has been featured in prominent publications such as Rolling Stone, Complex, and others, So I don't know where the " satisfy musical notability or general notability" came from. Also, I'm not attempting to "game the system." someone will undoubtedly checked to see whether the article has been generate before which is a no brainer. Before the actual article, I wrote a draft. So your argument that I'm trying to manipulate the system isn't valid. Plus, the reason why I did that was because the other version of the article was deleted and every time i write an article without submitting it gets nominated for deletion unlike my other article I submit. But, I just was thinking about it and knew it could be nominated for deletion no matter what so I just put the article in the article space. Gameforall (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a review of the sources, none appear reliable or go into significant in-depth coverage, and many are passing mentions in a list of artists. Additionally, interviews with subject do not establish notability, per WP: GNG. Reads like WP:ADMASQ and is certainly promotional in nature. The workarounds to ensure its status call into question WP:NPOV and WP:COI. NiklausGerard (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So how do people get prove their claim with sources about people real life stories without a major source interviewing them? Gameforall (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
get prove for their claim* Gameforall (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - - It is obvious that you aren’t clear in how notability is established on Wikipedia. Please review WP:GNG. Your sources should be independent, which means not from the subject or affiliated parties. Your sources should be reliable; not blogs, press releases, or other promotional content. And your sources should cover the subject in-depth, not solely mentions or listings in a prominent publication. Direct me to where you have sufficiently satisfied this (3 sources would be a good start) and I will happily change my decision. NiklausGerard (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      One thing I notice that every article I create one person aims for the article to be taken down. Tell me why Midwxst or Kashdami Wikipedia articles isnt taken down and those articles barely even have sources that are independent and there are interviews with subjects as sources The same goes to a lot of Wikipedia pages. But its my pages I create people want to take down. Nice. Gameforall (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Also most of the sources on the pages that are in the articles are press release, blogs, videos, Itunes/apple music links so why @Robert McClenon , @NiklausGerard , other admin and users on my neck on the articles I create. If you dont do nothing on other articles that have the same problem why come from mine makes no sense. Like I said plenty of times admins and users always pick and choose on this site. Gameforall (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And why did you include the disclaimer that the piece might be done for an undisclosed fee? You can't make a claim without proof, as I know you've seen in the judicial system and in real-life situations. Gameforall (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That template is used when the article in question MAY have been edited for pay and not openly disclosed. It is appropriate given the tone of the article, the information we have presently and the subject in question. Please review the guidelines on the template’s page for more clarity. NiklausGerard (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to User:Gameforall:
- Are you saying that most of your sources are "press release, blogs, videos", or that other articles have mostly press releases, blogs, videos?
- See Other Stuff Exists. You can nominate the other stuff for deletion.
- You have a right to create articles in article space, or to create drafts in draft space. Why did you create Ericdoa in both article space and draft space, if not to game the system?
  - If you create a draft that isn't ready for article space, it will be declined, and you can work on it.
  - If you create an article that isn't ready for article space, it may be either nominated for deletion or pushed into draft space, where you can work on it.
  - If you create a draft and an article that aren't ready for article space, we have no choice but to nominate it for deletion from article space.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the other articles. And also you try to aim for my article for what. I showed you examples of articles that dont "satisfy musical notability or general notability" as you seem to claim in my article. I know you saw those articles I showed you and left it alone but my article I create should be nominated for deletion. It doesn't make sense at all. This just proves my point you guys pick and choose Gameforall (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been digging around for references to this artist, and I'm finding a lot of coverage, honestly - Rolling Stone, NME, Paper Magazine, Alternative Press, Vice and a couple others. Having said that, if we have a draft underway someplace, then that might be the place to work from. @Gameforall: - may I suggest a course of action, which is to request a voluntary deletion of the article, and then to work on the draft, with assistance from other editors, to get valid sources and a much less promotional tone in place before moving it forward to mainspace again? Tony Fox (arf!) 02:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tony Fox Would you mind linking them? As I stated previously, if there are sources that satisfy the aforementioned notability standards I would be happy to recant. I haven’t found any and don’t believe they exist in the article either. Of the publications you listed, are you certain they are in-depth coverage, per WP:SIGCOV? Lastly, I can’t believe I have to say this but this wasn’t some personal attack or war on anyone, and this marks my first encounter with the subject or author. I am just doing my part in maintaining Wikipedia’s integrity. @Gameforall I would be happy to help you with the articles you would like to publish within the standards of the mainspace. NiklausGerard (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @NiklausGerard: No, they're not necessarily in the article, but the ones I've found are definitely indicative of a notable artist.
  - Vice article on hyperpop where he and Glaive (musician) are interviewed as representative of the Hyperpop scene.
  - Big profile here in The Line of Best Fit.
  - Interview feature in NME.
  - Big interview in Alternative Press (magazine) written by the mag's former editor-in-chief. (And I'm going to note that according to WP:GNG interviews are not automatically disqualified as sources - note the ongoing discussion on the GNG talk page. These are conducted by staff writers or freelancers, not marketing departments.)
  I think those may provide a fair bit towards notability here - when Vice, NME and AltPress give someone that kind of space, it says a lot. I think I can also find some mentions and discussion/reviews of his latest couple of singles, as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  One more I just stumbled across, including this piece from Complex where he's interviewed as what they call a "foundational figure of the digicore scene." Tony Fox (arf!) 05:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  (just another note here that it looks like some of these were already actually in the article at some point. I swear I looked at them and they weren't. Anyhow, these are all very good to me. I think the article needs a good rewrite to really amplify the sourcing though.) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have just done a rewrite of the article to make it more neutral and work on the sourcing. I feel that it's now well established and shows notability. Thus, count me as a Keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance for your contribute into keeping the Wikipedia page up Tony Fox. Also, thanks for helping out redoing the article. Your edits to the Wikipedia article are far superior to mine, thus I commend you for doing so. Gameforall (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, happy to help. Just need to wait for the process to wrap up here now. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Tony_Fox's edits
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although Gameforall has had a poor behavior of taking articles that should be reviewed first in draftspace and creating copies of them in articlespace (which was the same issue that led to the IShowSpeed deletion a few weeks ago), I believe in this case they were in the right. Ericdoa seems to pass notability guidelines per Gameforall and Tony Fox's edits. Not only were the sources they found strong enough to pass WP:NMUSIC, but there were already some decent enough sources in the article as well. Looking at the revision before Robert nominated it for deletion, literally the first reference in the article was a Pitchfork review of one of his EPs which included details on his personal life and background. The only other legitimate concern was the idea of interviews being non-independent per WP:Interviews, but just because a source contains some quotes from the subject itself doesn't automatically mean it should count as a primary source. Of course when an article is written directly about a person, they're going to include some material straight from them in order to draw material to write about; it's pretty hard to write an piece about a person's life and occupation without including some primary source material from them anyways, unless they were involved in some breaking news or controversy. But anyway, Gameforall here was mostly justified in moving the article to mainspace and in their responses.

On an unrelated note, I honestly think there needs to be some new speedy deletion policy where an article created in mainspace from an existing draft should automatically be deleted or merged. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think my job here is to ignore the history, avoid speculating on good or bad faith process, ignore how the article look at any point in time other than now and with that lens, this article seems notable to me, several reliable sources writing about them. CT55555 (talk) 00:14, 17 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.

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 Pain of Salvation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Andersson

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I was unable to find coverage online or on Proquest beyond the inadequate sources currently cited. Redirect to Pain of Salvation, their most notable associated act, seems appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pain of Salvation, in agreement with the nominator's reasoning. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 26 April 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DRC Music

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

Non-notable music group, does not meet WP:NBAND. Group of otherwise unrelated musicians that released a single album and dissolved shortly after. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 14:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 14:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: could possibly be redirected to Kinshasa One Two as the only release by this music collective? Richard3120 (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I don't think there's an obvious redirect target either. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:45, 8 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.

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 12:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roxolana (singer)

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

Although the subject participated in a major music competition, she was fourth and never featured hence does not meet WP: NMUSICIAN, also I can't find sources to prove notability. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 13:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ukraine. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 13:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 17:21, 26 April 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.

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. After a month, I am not spinning the wheel again to see if it gets more contribution. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miel de Botton

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: A sources search turn up [35] (Evening Standard) as the only reliable third party source with extensive coverage (There's a Daily Mail article as well but it cannot be used for establishing notability). [36] Entertainment Focus establishes the existence of two records. There's unfortunately not enough substantial coverage, in particular for a BLP. A bit of a shame there isn't more, really. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I reduced the article to substub status and integrated the two sources above - this should make clearer what substantial coverage is left. Much of the previous content was closely paraphrased from her bio. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be fair bit of coverage, for example: A magnetic connection Miel de Botton, from soulful music to heartfelt philanthropy, No camping for Miel, Alain De Botton’s sister Miel talks about music and fame, GUIDE INTERVIEW: Miel de Botton on starting a singing career after the break-up of her marriage and performing at her first festival in Dorset, Singer Miel de Botton to make festival debut at Camp Bestival Piecesofuk (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These [37] [38] [39] look like enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG to me. Jacona (talk) 15:45, 13 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.

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. Sandstein 16:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something Like Silas

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

Though I do remember this band, I don't believe it meets our notability guidelines. Natg 19 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Natg 19 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm also unsure if their "sequel" band, Future of Forestry is notable either, but that can be a different discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This incarnation barely made a dent in the Christian music scene. Powell, Mark Allan (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. ISBN 978-1565636798. was released as the band was starting and makes no mention of them. However, https://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/cdreviews/DivineInvitation.asp and https://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/products/Something_Like_Silas/Divine_Invitation/11647/ for this band and more for Future of Forestry (https://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/artists/FutureOfForestry.asp). Could support a redirect to FoF article and add a section about this band there. Many more sources for that band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the sources above from WG and this Allmusic review, there's enough to hang an article on; CCM magazine may have a review, as well. Chubbles (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 30 April 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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Rodríguez Ruidíaz

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

Sources are WP:PRIMARY or tangential. Couldn't find anything better. De-prodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Cuba. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has a distinctly promotional tone, but it seems possible at a glance that some SNG would be met. However, the main reference used is a self-published work. I don't see independent sourcing to verify that any SNG is met. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 29 April 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.

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. ✗plicit 12:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Close

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

Article is written like advertisement Deppty (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Deppty (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - the article does have issues, but being written like an advertisement isn't one of them. XtraJovial (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has some issues including contradictory information about where he was born, inconsistent naming, unconventional organizations, over reliance on primary sources. I've edited to address those issues. He seems notable. I think now it's good to stay up. CT55555 (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The topic seems generally notable. Passes WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE CT55555 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. Reasonably well sourced for a subject from a country with media less well-known to American readers. BD2412 T 00:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist, please look at the recent changes in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The singer has coverage from some credible secondary sources. Passes WP:GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources present in the article show that the individual passes GNG. Draftification is not a backdoor to deletion and, while it might be tempting to take this out of the mainspace to work on it, I don't think it's likely that draftifying the article will result in anything but its deletion in about six months. Since when editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, I think that the article should be kept and improved to bring it up-to-standards. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:25, 9 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.

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. Lot of discussion, absolutely no consensus Star Mississippi 03:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Momotenko Levitsky

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

Subject does not meet criteria for WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSICOTHER. JSTOR turns up only two hits, as one of many names included in lists. Subject won second prize at an electronic music festival, but it doesn't appear to be a notable one. Most sources in article consists of playlists from Concertzender [ne], a formerly government-funded radio station that is now a privately-owned non-profit station which broadcasts online only. Its audience, as a result, appears to be niche. News searches turn up a brief interview from Omroep Brabant and review from De Volkskrant, but nothing else. Can't find anything that establishes subject's notability as an influence, teacher, etc. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Netherlands, Russia, and Ukraine. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you discriminate Concertzender, the unique radio-station as a trustful source which exists from 1982 and who made thousands of great and seldom recordings of full festivals, concerts, projects etc... , so their audience is a niche, almost nothing according for your conclusions. So let's then delete all this page of the composer because you think that Wikipedia is made by you and you may discriminate everything that is not according your "find anything that establishes subject's notability as an influence, teacher, etc"... and the composer actually not exists at all.

I will send this link with your horrible conclusions about Concertzender to the members of the broadcaster! Shame! 2-xite (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is making unilateral decisions about anything here. That's the whole point of this process, which is not based on personal feelings, but on an interpretation of WP:COMPOSER and WP:NMUSICOTHER. You are welcome to disagree and state your reasons why. Everybody, including myself, is participating here with an open mind. Please refrain from personal attacks and keep your focus on the subject at hand. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you even not read the article, only focusing on deleting and reordering lines according your personal taste and "open mind"...

You do not have to interpret something, its all in the text, there.

para 1 of the holy criteria for WP:COMPOSER

NTR ZaterdagMatinee Series at Concertgebouw Amsterdam will never give repeatedly commissions to some DIYr or similar. The composer wrote for Netherlands Radio Choir and Radio Philharmonic Orchestra "at least" 2 notable compositions, those were performed together with names Rachmaninov or Mahler in Concertegebow Amsterdam and live broadcasted radio / video streamed... 2-xite (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the subject meets WP:ANYBIO and the WP:GNG. ANYBIO as the composer is included in the national music dictionary.[40] This biography plus other excellent sources[41][42] are sufficient for the General Notability Guideline. I further agree that the nominator talks down the Concertzender, where the composer has often been broadcasted.[43] The frequent broadcasts testify to his importance in contemporary Dutch classical music. But not only the Concertzender is talked down. Great sources are as well. Nominator writes right after after alluding to these: but nothing else. Why would one do that? Next they write Can't find anything that establishes subject's notability as an influence, teacher, etc.. This is essentially the same WP:HERRING as the beginning, Subject does not meet criteria for WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSICOTHER. But WP:COMPOSER and WP:NMUSICOTHER are not the only track by which an individual is notable! Now everyone who nominates an article wants to write a compelling intro. In general, when the subject is notable, this often gets into talking accomplishments and sources down and sidetracking the reader. In such cases, the branch solution is to phrase introductions more carefully (important especially for BLP!) yet the root solution is not to nominate notable subjects! gidonb (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "allude" to anything, I stated the sources in question outright. With respect to Concertzender, they went from being a government-funded station that was broadcast nationally to a private internet station. The fact that their funding was cut suggests that the Dutch government, at least, found their influence to already be niche. It would be different if subject's music was broadcast regularly from major national stations elsewhere, but this isn't the case. Moreover, subject's notability, such as it is, seems to rest on composing music that rides the coattails of other more famous composers and works. Ultimately, I disagree with your opinion, but thank you kindly for your input all the same. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With alluding I meant not the downplaying of specific sources but the more general discussion of the Concertzender. Here repeated. So the Netherlands has seen its government budgets for culture slashed, especially under the First Rutte cabinet and the digital revolution hasn't skipped the Netherlands either. It's not part of my WP:GNG coverage but does speak to the general importance of the composer. As 2-xite mentioned before me, nothing wrong with the Concertzender. And even IF there was, it would not affect the notability per WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful answers. Thank you.

I wish to add another very important quality about the Concertzender. The database of this Broadcast is amazing in its variation and the possibility to listen the recordings on demand even many years after the public releases. There is no public sender I can compare that keeps sharing the music-joy with the audience for so long instead of removing / hiding it after few years. So the amount of the listeners spread over time is really huge and is far from the used term "niche". 2-xite (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'm glad that you enjoy your music supply! Again, I found the composer to be notable under the WP:GNG, regardless of Concertzender, and the nominator to belittle valid sources from Omroep Brabant and the Volkskrant. It is a fact that the composer appears in the national music dictionary and therefore meets WP:ANYBIO. This baseless nomination is best withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there were some more important sources added to approve the General Notability Guideline and the importance of the Dutch contemporary music. The orchestral work "Madame en Noir" was the opening-piece of the 25th edition of one of the most outstanding festivals in the Netherlands at that time. It's also striking that the composer has Ukrainian roots (born in Lviv), studied in Russia, but most of the time in the Netherlands and from Dutch Nationality, so additionally to all musical values it may be obvious to vindicate this artist on Wikipedia. 87.110.183.188 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 27 April 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.

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 Major Lazer. – Joe (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skerrit Bwoy

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

Fails WP:GNG also concerns about sock puppetry and undisclosed paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accepted this via AfC and still think he may scrape by GNG. However coverage is thin and totally concur with nom on UPE, so have no objection to it waiting for an uninvolved editor to create it. So um weak neutral? Star Mississippi 19:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in the event I am a hold up from a closing consensus, I'm fine with Redirect too Star Mississippi 19:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apparently he's been the subject of another earlier documentary as well from an independent source, which I've added to the article and which is referenced in an anthropology textbook. That with the Vice Article, Miami New Times, etc., I'm surprised, but I think there's sufficient coverage here.Jahaza (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The MNT article is basically local small talk and the Vice article isn't even written by staff - it's a contributor/freelancer. CUPIDICAE💕 13:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The staff vs. contributer/freelancer thing is not a relevant distinction except for certain publications like Forbes that run a self-publishing platform alongside their actual publication. AFAIK, Vice doesn't do that and like other magazines/web sites has both staff and freelance writers, but they're all writers for the publication. The news hook for the MNT article is the local concert, but it's a paper that gets read for its pop culture coverage beyond Miami.--Jahaza (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is relevant because it's not subject to the publications editorial oversight and it's obvious it was a paid for spam piece. CUPIDICAE💕 17:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some evidence for that? You can't just assert that it's advertorial without any evidence?--Jahaza (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jahaza. I didn't put my two cents in before. Among 6 references I saw at the time of nomination [44], there were: 2 "included in a list", 1 "interview (primary source)", and 1 "article that deals with them tangentially"; ~~but 2 articles that focus on them in depth~~. Seems the sourcing has improved since then. _signed,Willondon (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, per CUPIDICAE. The 2 articles I referred to were Vice and MNT. They are of lesser value than I at first thought. _signed,Willondon (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created by Wizgirl1470 and Uptopclickllc, confirmed socks of each other. Note that Uptop Click provides "brand consultation, strategic market planning, Spotify marketing and Publicity" to Skerrit Bwoy, so a clear and undisclosed conflict of interest and a violation of paid-editing requirements. --Yamla (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if we don't think there should be a separate article on this guy, he's confirmed by sources like Rolling Stone[45] to have been been a member of Major Lazer and rather than deleting, some of the info should be merged there and the article redirected.Jahaza (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Major Laser seems the best. Oaktree b (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per my earlier analysis and Oaktree. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we are serious about undisclosed paid editing being against policy (as well as the ToU) then we simply can't allow this page to stand. SpinningSpark 10:47, 27 April 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.

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 11:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LeperKhanz

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

non-notable local band that never really took off in a way that would make them notable on wikipedia. CUPIDICAE💕 21:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd.

Logs: 2022-04 ↻ restored ← 2022-01 ✗ PROD

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not able to find any reliable, significant coverage, even on more specialty music sites or local newspapers. No notability established. Do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 25 April 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.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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 Cobra Starship. consensus is clear among established editors Star Mississippi 02:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Asher

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

No WP:SIGCOV that I could find in a WP:BEFORE search. No reviews by notable critics, no profiles in RS. Suggest a redirect to Cobra Starship. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about this one? It seems on-point. It covers age, band, education, and the relation to Jane Asher. And we can identify who the byline is.
- Bain, Ellissa (2022-04-07). "Who is Britney Spear's assistant Vicky-T? Meet Victoria Asher". HITC.com.
There's also this one, which is actually different to the other, even though it's the same headline. Obviously sourced to an interview in part, but it covers the same sort of ground in between the interview bits. And it at least claims to fact check and names its editors and this author.
- Harvey, Amelia (2022-03-19). "Who Is Britney Spears' Assistant Vicky T?". TheThings.com.
They don't have the look of recycled press releases, seem reliable, have identifiable authors, are in depth — and there are at least two of them. I'd say, at this point, that this is not the sort of in-a-university-press-book sourcing that you and I are used to from some of the biography articles that we've tackled recently. But in fact this person is in a university press book, it turns out. Fathallah 2020, pp. 24–25 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFathallah2020 (help) documents the Cobra Starship membership and comments on it. Alone, yes, that would be a mention in the other article. But we have two biography sources that go into background, too. Judith May Fathallah of Solent University confirms that the celebrity news biographies aren't just hot air.
- Fathallah, Judith May (2020). Emo: How Fans Defined a Subculture. University of Iowa Press. ISBN 9781609387242.
Then there are old issues of Billboard magazine, and the Asher family and Cobra Starship/Vicky-T mention in Chris O'Dell's (yes, that one) 2009 autobiography (page 384). So two major sources and some little ones confirming bits and pieces. I mention merely in passing that the subject is on a book on the Beatles, Asher 2019, p. 52 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAsher2019 (help), documenting the Vicky-T pseudonym. But that's because the author is the subject's father. It isn't in-depth, either. It would at least have sourced that sentence in the prior article, though. Peter Asher is probably not lying about the name of xyr daughter, even if we'd vastly prefer other sources for anything else, and probably has enough subject expertise to know whether someone has a music career. ☺
- Asher, Peter (2019). The Beatles from A to Zed: An Alphabetical Mystery Tour. Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 9781250209580.
Oddest for last: a CUP textbook for learning English, Hart & Stranks 2010, p. 118 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHartStranks2010 (help). Not in-depth, and like Fathallah 2020 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFathallah2020 (help) if it were the only thing. And not on-point with the actual expert subject matter, which is why I wouldn't bother with it at all despite its provenance. But a bizarre second university press book that came up when looking.
- Hart, Brian; Stranks, Jeff (2010). American English in Mind Starter Teacher's Edition. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521733304. Victoria Asher is American, but some of her family is from Britain.
Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The HITC source didn't look reliable to me, and although thethings does have a corrections and gave checking policy, their about us page says Celebrity Coverage: If you’re talking about it, we’re talking about it. We want to know how much celebrities are making, where they’re living, who they’re dating, and most importantly, what they’re up to right. Now. When we know, you know. The Hollywood world is full of twists and turns. This is why our content dives deep into the subject and uncovers the complicated and most important questions you might have about the latest celebrity drama. Get the answers you need, all in one place. Despite having those editorial policies published, I don't think a site focused on celebrity drama really works to establish notability.
  As for the books, I am consistently astounded by your ability to find book sources. Would you say the book sources are enough significant coverage to establish notability? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cobra Starship - This one is admittedly a close call. Kudos to Uncle G above for tracking down obscure sources, but I don't see them getting Victoria past the WP:NOTINHERITED hurdle. She got some notice as the assistant during the "FreeBritney" saga but those stories just show her connection to a controversy surrounding someone else. The books add the fact that she has a notable father. But she does not achieve notability by inheriting it from Britney or her father or Cobra Starship. All of her useful sources are about her activities with Cobra Starship and her solo music has gained no reliable notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this page being considered for deletion and why has more than half of it been deleted? I understand the lame gossip article about her and Patrick Stump but the rest is all fact. She IS the daughter of Peter Asher and Wendy Asher. She also IS the assistant of Britney Spears as confirmed by articles as well as Britney's instagram page herself.
  Makes no sense that this page would be deleted at all. It has been up for many years and is all backed by fact. Rumraisinv (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)— Rumraisinv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There is literally no reason to delete this page. Someone has been removing true information from it in an effort to invalidate the page. Please return it to its rightful status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:2C11:0:0:0:2 (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — 2600:387:C:2C11:0:0:0:2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I agree. Victoria Asher has many achievements through her musician and film year. On her website https://vickyt.com/about the About page and the Print page, she has many valid evidences that she worked with Cobra Starship https://www.altpress.com/features/women-in-rock-2000s-music/. She is a daughter of Pete Asher https://www.celebnetworthpost.com/peter-asher. She is also Britney Spears's assistant https://www.thethings.com/who-is-britney-spears-assistant-vicky-t-victoria-asher-details/. She did many performances worldwide with Cobra Starship: https://vickyt.com/video-press-performance . It would be injustice to delete her page. Ubering cacti (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)— Ubering cacti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That's a primary source from the subject, a single paragraph, an unreliable source, an unreliable source, and a primary source from the subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ScottishFinnishRadish Thanks for pointing that out. I hope more people are looking into this. Victoria has been in the music and film industry for a long time. She is also a great person to know on Instagram. It would be a shame to delete her page. I truly hope for more people are looking in for her reliable sources. Ubering cacti (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current arguments for "keep" are weak and not policy-based. They do not demonstrate encyclopedic notability. However, several sources have been brought forth, and it seems this may be a borderline case. Therefore I am relisting this should any additional sources be brought forth which could show GNG nor NBIO is met. The length of time the article has been on Wikipedia, whether or not it is "factual", and being related or employed by famous people, all of these are not valid reasons for keeping an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This all seems very tabloid, and it's not my usual area. But there is tons of news about her job as Britney Spears assistant
- https://daily9news.com/omg-britney-spears-was-seen-topless-in-the-pool-photo-without-clothes-with-assistant-goes-viral/
If you google news search "Spears" AND "Vicky-T" you get lots of stuff. It does suggest notability, but I don't know wikipeia's appraoch to tabloid/pop culture notability well, so I'll refrain from !voting. CT55555 (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the fact that the About Us link doesn't work, and the privacy policy is so poorly copy/pasted that it still has the Suggested text: in place, I'd say it's probably not a reliable source, even moreso for a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A slew of IPs have posted "Don't Delete" on the Talk page of this discussion, mostly with no reasons given, or else that she is being targeted because she is an assistant to Britney Spears, which is at present not part of the article being considered for deletion. David notMD (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also removed a bunch of the same that were posted above the AfD templates. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - So far, 13 accounts have posted incorrectly to the talk page, and 11 have done nothing else in Wikipedia. For the remaining 2, this is the second or third thing they're ever done. Also note the repeated claims. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am moving comments that ScottishFinnishRadish removed as they are constructive and done in good faith, just in the wrong place and in ignorance of policy: Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vicky is a great human being besides of course being a great musician as well. I don’t even know why her wiki is considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:AB40:A6:C0FE:1948:7C81:7510 (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria Asher is 34 and awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.221.216 (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is born 1988 on Jan. 20, 1988. That would make her 34. 108.11.24.237 (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s not delete this page, that would be neat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:600:4B00:0:0:0:8F5B (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.219.97 (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.92.175 (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
VickyT is an awesome artist. Her recent activity as Britney's assistant put her in the spotlight. Unfortunately, she gained attention from bad people or crazy Britney's fans too. Last modifications of her page seems to be the work of malevelent person. Deleting her page would be unfair and a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB14:83BE:9900:4D1A:1A96:6322:736B (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would make no sense to delete this artists page. Everything written is true. She is an incredible musician and definitely made her mark in the music world. To delete that would make no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.111.53 (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria Asher is a wonderful person and artist who inspires people like myself with her music and background. I believe the people or person who trying to get Victoria's wikipedia page deleted is doing so out of spite since she has been thrown into the spotlight very recently by her new career move as Britney Spears assistant. This is not a valid reason to delete a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:3E34:700:909D:F25A:5786:CAB4 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She has plenty of previous entertainment history to have a wiki page. Deletion not needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:4701:E4CB:64D7:3242:C91D:5335 (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So now that those are all here (above), that is a lot of enthusiasm but little idea of how to make a case for notability. Note that IPs now blocked. David notMD (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citations & Notability have been added. See Victoria Asher's Reference List. This nomination for deletion is truly a sign of sabotage - and a big shame since women have been systemically neglected by history. Asher is well known musician in a male dominated genre.^[1] I highly suggest removing the AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpress1 (talk • contribs)
You added:
- [46] which is not significant coverage
- [47] which is not significant coverage, merely a single quote among many
- [48] which simply mentions her name once
- [49] which isn't an RS, and isn't significant coverage anyway
- [50] is an interview with her parents, not independent, doesn't establish notability
- [51] an interview with a non-notable publication, doesn't establish notability
- [52] is coverage about the band, not coverage of her, mentions her name once
- [53] another interview with a non-notable publication, doesn't establish notability
Lastly, please leave out the personal attacks about sabotage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Knopper, Steve (21 June 2018). "'It Was 11 Guys on a Bus, and Then Me': Women on the Warped Tour". New York Times. Retrieved 20 April 2022.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last attempt to get some policy based comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 09:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had the university press books not been a surprise, I'd have gone into the magazine sources more. I wasn't expecting this to still be open after my having been distracted by so many things. But since it is, here goes: Yes, the magazines want to publish ridiculous fluff about who is friends with whom this week, but the almost accidental byproduct of that is valid non-trivial biographical content of the subject, from sources whose authors and editors I can name, with a fact checking policy. This isn't the sort of high grade stuff that some biographies have, but it is what we are looking for: in-depth material by identifiable people with known good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. I can identify Amelia Harvey and Elissa Bain and the magazine editors. And they tell me things like when the article subject dropped out of university for a music career.
So no, these don't get to be unreliable just because they headline the useless celebrity fluff. They address the topic on point and in depth enough that I know things like where the subject studied film. They aren't recycled press releases. And they aren't first person interviews. I do not fault them for satisfying our criteria just because they are in the bands, businesses, and (living person) biographies topic area. It isn't right to do that. They count.
Indeed, this is tame sourcing by the standards of some of the fawning, hagiographic, exaggerated, and sometimes obviously downright fabricated biographical press content that one has to filter out for biographies of long-dead people. ☺Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete Would prefer delete as she fails WP:SIGCOV. There is no WP:SECONDARY coverage, but a redirect would acceptable. scope_creep^Talk 10:56, 2 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.

Bands and musicians Templates for deletion

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

References

[1] Knopper, Steve (21 June 2018). "'It Was 11 Guys on a Bus, and Then Me': Women on the Warped Tour". New York Times. Retrieved 20 April 2022.

[1]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ==Bands and musicians==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Schmidt}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Crowell}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Mittelmann}}

Revision as of 19:52, 1 May 2022

Bands and musicians

Bands and musicians Templates for deletion

Categories

References