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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:43, 20 March 2010

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. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hahn

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

Member of a notable music group who has not achieved his own notability outside of that group. While he has worked professionally outside of the group, taken on its own it is not enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Linkin Park. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, redirects of this group's members' articles are promptly reverted until there's been an AFD. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, school them on WP:EW. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to edit war! ;) Zagalejo^^^ 08:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass the GNG. There's this, this, this, and this. He also has a profile here. And if this article is correct, he was on the cover of KoreAm Journal in 2003. (Can anyone confirm?) The page does need some serious cleanup; I'll try to do some of that soon. Zagalejo^^^ 08:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Every instance is "Linkin Park DJ..." and in many cases it's about his aspirations to work in film, not about something he's actually done. In the 2nd link, despite the headline, less than a quarter of the article is about Hahn directing, and even then most of that is about a music video he directed for the band. Any of those links would be a great reference to add to the Linkin Park article but I don't see that it shows Hahn's notability outside of the group. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, his short film The Seed is a finished product. You can watch it online. But anyway, I don't see why he has to have notability outside of the band, as long as we have enough to say about him. Details about his early years and education (such as those available here and elsewhere) are difficult to incorporate into an article on the band. Factoring in the info on his short film work, toy designs, and Hollywood aspirations, I think an independent article, even if it's only a couple of paragraphs, may be the best route here. Zagalejo^^^ 03:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources exist, per above. fetchcomms☛ 02:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Zagalejo's points above, it is quite obvious that he is notable independent of the band. He has accomplished enough outside deeds that are noted in the references. Silver seren^C 04:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage from MTV. Str8cash (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I added his IMDB. I know some idiots will discredit IMDB, but he does have credits outside of the band. I also sourced that he has directed videos for bands other than Linkin Park. He also has appeared in multiple bands--side project bands that themselves have been successful and notable, another passage of WP:MUSICBIO. This is a no-brainer.Trackinfo (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zeds Dead

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

Non-notable declined speedy. Ridernyc (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete awards good enough for stopping A7 but not for wp:music. no notability here. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bucket of Ghits, and surprisingly most relate to the band and not the Pulp Fiction quote, but I can't find any that constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annah Moore

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

Google search turns up only WP:SELFPUB. Has authored one book, but doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP (unsourced for 6 months), no evidence or assertion of notability, reasonable searched for web-based sources produced trivial book listings and little else. Studerby (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2010 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church (TV personality)

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

Promotional and possible autobiographical article for a "personality" of questionable notability. Only sources referenced are either primary or user-submitted - no independent or verifiable third-party sources provided. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who is Church? The article doesn't explain it well. It is very spotty on information and just tells bits and pieces thus lacks the necessary information to assert notability. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - his promotional work for other bands is barely notable, but not for his own band. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellflower. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The only thing that would seem to go some way to establishing notability is the reality show that actually does seem to exist. However, the article is constantly edited by new editors and anonymous IPs that actually seem to be the same person and most likely are the subject himself. This/these editor(s) keep adding irrelevant info that is not or badly sourced. Given the only borderline notability, I think that at this point it is better to delete this article rather than keeping a bio that needs constant supervision by patient editors (my patience ran out a while ago)... --Crusio (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability - Article written like a promotional piece --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[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. Tone 15:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaiah

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

Non notable band. DimaG (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The band does not seem to meet any of the notability guidelines outlined by WP:BAND and there aren't any sources to establish such. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:35, 2 April 2010 (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannis

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

Not notable as per WP:BAND. A few links to Facebook/ Blogspot etc. Wintonian (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artist is a songwriter as per WP:COMPOSER. Links refer to compositions of note. mikesterpa 11:41, 19 March 2010 (PST) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you wish contribute to the discussion particularly as the author of the article, but please be aware of WP:COI conflict of interests should really be declared. Could you possibly expand on why you think it meets WP:COMPOSER? --Wintonian (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also please have a look at WP:CITE, WP:N and you can ask questions on anything you are not sure about at WP:NUH. Thank you again for contributing :-). --Wintonian (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no indication of notability. Fails WP:BAND (and WP:COMPOSER, for that matter). See also WP:Vanispamcruftisement. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One guy's bedroom project. He's recorded one self-released album. Fails WP:BAND by a long shot. Fails WP:COMPOSER too: not credited with any notable compositions, his works have won no awards and have not been used in other notable works, and he's not an influence on anyone. — Gwalla | Talk 23:50, 20 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lovers Band

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

Another Myspace/ Facebook type band? Even the stated official website dosn't seem to exist and with 2 other links to Facebook and You Tube I would suggest they are not notable. Wintonian (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See no references, other than MySpace. Pilif 12p (contribs) 02:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article barely makes any sense. Article says they're signed with EMI, but searching the site does not appear to return anything relevant. Much of the article (the member biographies, for instance) appears to be machine translated from the band's site. I do not see any evidence of notability. though @ Wintonian, the site does work fine. the link in the external links section had a superfluous "|" in it that was breaking it, which I went ahead and fixed. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks didn't spot that - still fails WP:BAND though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by --Wintonian (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Back (band)

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

The article is crosswiki spam, doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and the subject of notability of this band had been disputed on several Wikipedias (Hebrew Wiki, Czech Wiki - cs.wiki will delete this article on 4th April). Even though the notability was disputed, no reliable sources have been added. There are only 3 external links that are primary sources (youtube link) which are inadmissible, because the band itself is author. There are no reliable secondary sources that would prove the notability. Faigl.ladislav (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find any reliable sources to indicate this band's notability. Intelligentsium 22:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. I recommend that anyone who understands Hebrew will go and read the VFD in he.wiki. It has some vert interesting findings. Broccoli (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lew

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

Good faith media search identifies no significant coverage in reliable sources, nor evidence of meeting any of the topic-specific inclusion criteria. ^Bongo_matic 15:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I searched as well, also in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but could not find any additional coverage of this Internet personality beyond the one review on Allmusic. Delete unless some other sources turn up. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note – There was no AfD tag on the article, so I added it just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Relisting twice due to the article being a BLP and the late addition of the AFD tag. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Doesn't seem to meet the requirements for notability. Lots of words and sources on the article but it seems to really all be fluff. 162.24.9.213 (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2010 (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. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" decision. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moy

Keep Concur with Olaf Davis below and his reasoning in the difference in Band mates.--Dymo400 (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC) --Dymo400 (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable member of a notable band; plenty of news sources can be found, see Daily News, AP, Chicago Tribune, etc. Bearian (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP CHANGED VOTE TO KEEP - see band mate for identical reasons for deletion Deletion Log for Other Band Mate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.208.55 (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike José Bordonada Collazo, whose AfD I started, Moy seems to have been the main subject of a number of articles in reliable sources - the one currently on the article and those given by Bearian above are enough to establish notability via the GNG to my mind. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hellflower

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

Previously deleted article about a band of questionable notability. With the exception of one news story from this week about recording an album, all provided sources are primary references. No serious indications of notability yet. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be fleshed out. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Jarkeld (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of touring or any other factor for WP:BAND. Will change mind for sources. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not assert notability, I can't believe the speedy was declined... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:39, 25 March 2010 (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. Shimeru (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sha Stimuli

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

Contested PROD. Prod reason was As far as I can tell the only notability is inherited notability from his brother, something not acceptable as a criterion for inclusion. I do not believe that this artist passes our notability test yet. Should he become notable in the future then the article should return, properly referenced

I have checked the references and links given. One goes to a site that is said to issue malware. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate coverage exists, as indicated on the article's talk page.--Michig (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one of those sites that Michig mentioned was britishhiphop interview which said that Sha Stimuli won "Best Male Rapper Of The Year" award at the 2008 UMA's, and "Best Lyricist" award at the 2007 UMA's. Does anyone know what the "UMA's" are? Are those notable awards? The evident lack of coverage makes me suspect that they are not, but does anybody know? --Bejnar (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 09:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and formatted the links. Silver seren^C 09:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to [1], the UMA in question is underground music awards. The awards show seems to have been on MTV in 2008 [2], but not sure how much that counts as it doesn't look like they covered the 2009 show. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after due consideration and based upon the lack of coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage in reliable sources and the UMA's should count as a necessary nomination/award. Silver seren^C 19:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When one reads the "external links" attached to the article, it is clear that the reliability of the "sources" falls well short of notability standards: blogs, uncritical interviews, etc. In the case of a BLP, the need for reliable sources, as opposed to anything that can be found on the interweb, is all the more acute. In my view, throwing such unreliable external links tacked onto the bottom of a BLP to try to save it from deletion, without any attempt to use the links to verify material in the article, is unhelpful. This must be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has XXL (who reviewed his album), a major print magazine available all around the world, been considered an unreliable source?--Michig (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly sufficient to form the basis for a proper article about the artist. Assuming it is reliable (I'll take your word) it isn't significant coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's both reliable and significant coverage. HipHopDX is also a perfectly good source.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's where I definitely have to disagree. Interviews with an article's subject are effectively self-published material, and reliable sources generally don't provide links to the subject's blog and tweets and contain repetitive exclamation marks. [3] --Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HipHopDX is a major source of hip hop news and music coverage, one with which Sha Stimuli is unaffiliated. Calling their articles on him "self-published" is ridiculous. With regards to the links to blogs/Twitters, online music journalists would be remiss if they didn't include links to Myspace etc. since links are what make the online world go 'round. - DevOhm ^Talk 11:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His album was recently kept at AFD. If there's enough coverage of the album then there's anough coverage of the artist.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't much discussion of the album, and the basis for its notability was not tied to the guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't much discussion, but it was kept because it has received multiple significant coverage in reliable sources and is, per WP:GNG, therefore notable. Coverage of an artist's recordings is also coverage of the artist.--Michig (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two reviews are cited, one to XXL Mag and the other to HipHop DX. There was no claim of significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two reviews are significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage on HipHopDX is legit, especially considering its status as a major site for hip hop news and music. Collaboration with known artists and producers like Just Blaze, Freeway, and T-Pain further supports notability. Finally, coverage in at least two big-time print publications (XXL and Source) should really end this discussion. - DevOhm ^Talk 11:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'd agree with Michig's assessment here. Even though there is not a huge amount of coverage, enough third-party sources have noticed this musician that, per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1 we ought to have an article about him. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:36, 8 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carnivores (band)

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

This page has been deleted before, and re-introdced to the project. The author has placed a {{hangon}} tag on the article this time (I was browsing through CAT:CSD. I figured the less controversial way to figure out if this page should be deleted or not is to bring it to AFD for discussion. Dusti^SPEAK!! 14:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I can tell, they don't meet WP:BAND. Their best claim is through radio play, but it's unclear whether they were placed in rotation on the stations mentioned (which may meet the criteria) or just played (which wouldn't). — Gwalla | Talk 17:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete repeatedly recreated, still does not meet WP:BAND. Radio play or not, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nom. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:01, 20 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzz Phantoms

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

I'd like to see what the consensus is on this one. This band has yet to release a single, let alone an album; but the band members include one notable musician. I'm thinking a redirect/merge to ~~Darren Cordeux~~ Kisschasy may be appropriate here until the band achieves notability, but am interested to see if notability already is or could be established. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BAND gives a pass to groups containing two or more notable musicians, but there's only one here. No albums yet. No significant coverage: Google news gets nothing, and Google proper just brings up social networking, forum posts, etc. — Gwalla | Talk 17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet any of the WP:BAND criteria yet. Notability will be fortified significantly if they actually release anything; most "side projects" just dissolve into vapour anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:35, 20 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hott Beat

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

fails WP:BAND. no significant coverage only limited. [4]. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:22, 25 March 2010 (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. Black Kite 18:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Babicz

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

Fails the general notability guideline as well as WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC as I can't find any significant coverage about him and he hasn't impacted his field or won a major award. Borderline speedy (A7) but the article claims that he produced presets for Native Instruments. Them From Space 00:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The German page de:Rob Acid (his pseudonym) makes a claim that clearly meets the music standards, namely that he charted on the English dance charts. (Obviously this needs to be added to the article.) Rigadoun (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. plenty of coverage worldwide —siro χ o 03:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping with Sirens

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

I found nothing about this band. There is no reliable sources nor can I find one. Except Last.fm which this article is just a copy paste job from it. I don't think they are notable enough to be here. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I musta been asleep @ the wheel and hit the wrong speedy-button. It's a copyvio of [5] and others. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Copyvio -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There is an AfD for the debut album as well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/With Ears To See and Eyes To Hear. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2010 (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 close. No rationale for deletion presented. Article has been redirected to Attack Attack!. — Gwalla | Talk 16:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Barham

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

Band member whose only notability is from membership of a band. WP:MUSIC states "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability", but author contested this. I42 (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:MUSIC as quoted by nominator. You don't need an administrator to do this. — Gwalla | Talk 20:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as already suggested. I've found no sources to suggest individual notability, but "Nick Barham" would be a plausible redirect. Bettia (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

José Monti Montañez

José_Monti_Montañez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

DELETE Other member Jose who is mentioned on his page was nominated and deleted for the same reason I believe this page should be deleted. A simple google search show no real notariety to sustain the page.--Dymo400 (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dymo400 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable member of a notable band. I found plenty of News Ghits for this and the other band members. What gives? Bearian (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE see band mate for identical reasons for deletion Deletion Log for Other Band Mate--75.74.208.55 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:28, 26 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nusrullah Khan Noori

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

This is a biography of a singer that doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. The sources used to support various claims within the article either only mention the subject or link to audio samples. Althouth ther are 261,000 Google hits for "Nusrullah Khan Noori", there are only 155 unique hits...none of them appear to be the type of reliable source that should be used for a WP:BLP article. — Scientizzle 14:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user IP socks

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How can you say that as two reliable reference has been provide with this article 1 & 2. I am of the view that this article should not be deleted as reliable references has been provided. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.59.185 (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep this article.--116.71.17.159 (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these IP edits are block evading socks of User:Iadrian yu. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure they're not socks of Iamsaa? Typo? This would accord with article edit history. Esowteric+Talk 15:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. Esowteric+Talk 15:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had also thought these were Iamsaa--they fit w/ previous IP socks (here) in behavior and range, geolocating[7][8] to Pakistan. Iadrian yu appears to be in Eastern Europe. — Scientizzle 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible I was juggling one two many knives. Yeah, I meant Iamsaa; I shouldn't block when I'm in a hurry. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keepthis article, please.--116.71.17.41 (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another IP-hopper. Possibly a sock. Has opened an AN/I here. Esowteric+Talk 11:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the picture is also a copy vio and needs to be removed sooner rather than later. Off2riorob (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2010 (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Chew

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

WP:BIO not notable Alan - talk 01:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO - has two good sources already, and more could be found easily. Bearian (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC) There are over 70,000 Ghits to sort through, of which at least a few have to be good. Bearian (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news turns up lots of good stuff, see this search which is loaded with in-depth reliable source material. Several articles are behind paywalls or registration walls, but from just the abstracts its obvious that on the first page alone there are half a dozen or so unique sources that could be used to expand the current article, covering a wide range of subjects relating to his life. That the current article is essentially a stub isn't relevent here, due dilligence by the nominator would have turned up enough to establish that the article could be expanded with plenty of reliable, independent, and indepth sources. --Jayron32 17:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/speedy keep. Per the above sources. Agree that it is incumbent upon nom to do a pre-nom check before bringing silly stuff like this.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck on planet earth

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

Remarkably unremarkable band. Declined speedy. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no reliable coverage beyond self-promotional social networks, file-sharing sites, etc. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable coverage and fails WP:MUSIC. Clubmarx (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Datsik (musician)

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

Non-notable only claim to notability is appearing on some sort of online chart. Ridernyc (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing I see meets WP:MUSIC. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find anything on this guy outside of blogs. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:50, 17 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random sanity

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

Search on Google is mostly false positives, non-notable independent Hip-hop group. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of the usual myspace garage bands that makes grand claims without providing any evidence. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Google comes up with nothing other than the group's own YouTube and blog accounts. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources readily found. Shadowjams (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2010 (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 Incubate. Moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Overdrive (band) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overdrive (band)

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

Band does not meet notability standards. No charted songs, no notable albums. References are all either from the EXIT Festival, or other sites' simple listings of EXIT Festival acts. No other independent coverage that I can find, at least not in English. Very difficult to verify anything presented. (Declined speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate to encourage research, then delete if notability can't be established in a reasonable period of time. Given that there are probably non-English sources that could establish this band's notability I am hesitant to delete it in a process that lasts only a week or maybe two and which isn't designed to rescue articles. It needs more time and attention from local or subject-matter experts. Criteria of Wikipedia:Notability_(music) that this band might meet but which aren't in or aren't clearly in the article include 1/non-trivial coverage, 4/tour, 5/major+major-indie label, 11/rotation, and possibly others. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 19:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Overdrive (band) per Davidwr. If, after a reasonable amount of time, there is no improvement to the article, then delete. Cunard (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per above, may have potential if thrown out to where someone can dig up any possible Serbian sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:21, 31 March 2010 (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. Tone 21:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hallman

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

Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC because it fails WP:V. No secondary sources to be found through Google or any other search (beyond passing mentions). Jubilee♫clipman 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Jubilee♫clipman 19:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Concerning verifiable third-party sources, what about http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/24/arts/music/24dema.html?_r=1, cited in a footnote to the article? It may not be much, but it is something more than nothing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Passing mention, IMO. It is something, though, I grant you! Updated my nomination accordingly. I have also been trying to find info on the "Darius Milhaud Awards" but to no avail, so far. Any help there? Seems to be given out by the Darius Milhaud Society but I can't find much about them on the net either Update: see pg 81 of this. However, I still can't verify that Hallman actually received that award: all the claims to that effect (so far found) are either on his own website, on other closely related sites or on obvious non-RSs such as social networking sites, wikis, etc. Further update: I added another ref but I am still not convinced... that's as far as I can go! --Jubilee♫clipman 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the Society itself, see: <http://watchdog.net/ein/341402068/darius-milhaud-society> and <http://www.socialcurrent.org/nonprofit/341402068/Darius_Milhaud_Society>. Their Newsletter is listed here: <http://www.magazine-subscription-search.com/prd155378.php>. I can't find a list of winners, either, but that is not too surprising for an award given to undergraduates within an institution (in this case, students at the Cleveland Institute of Music). The first award was in 1985, and the recipient was David Wolfson: <http://www.voxnovus.com/composer/David_Wolfson.htm> (who does not have a Wikipedia article—I've checked). I have a handful of that sort of composition award myself. As they used to say, that and twenty-five cents will get you a cup of coffee. Today it's more like $2.50, so I reckon those awards must be worth even less today.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The award is, essentially, "expressly for newcomers", then? If so, it also fails WP:COMPOSER... --Jubilee♫clipman 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As far as I can tell, it is "expressly for students", though not necessarily for "newcomers". In either case, this award by itself would not make a case for notability, no. A single review in the New York Times is a bit marginal, as well. It would help if there were two or three others, even in less well-known publications, to lend some support to the idea of being "frequently covered in publications".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found two articles/profiles: philly2philly - a local Philadelphia news website, AvianMusic - A New York City-based contemporary music ensemble dedicated to the music of living American composers. I'm unsure if the material is really independent and reliable. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search of the Drexel University site shows no Joseph Hallman, and he is not listed among the faculty (there is no degree program in music - only a minor in music is offered). Incidentally, I listened to his string quartet and looked at the score of his quintet, and he really is a fine composer. Unfortunately, that alone does not qualify him to be in Wikipedia. Let's give him another couple of years to make a name for himself. Joe, keep slugging away. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly since the article makes claims of notability, but if the claims can't be reliably verified I don't think we can justify keeping the article. --Deskford (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lewis (singer-songwriter)

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

There is no indication that the subject artist meets WP:MUSICBIO or meets general notability through another way. Due to the common name, searching is difficult, but the artist's own press page does not seem to reveal anything that would meet MUSICBIO. Novaseminary (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Novaseminary (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I did some comprehensive searching, and the only link I could find was his official website, which hasn't been updated in almost a year. In addition, none of his albums seem to have ever been available (one of them says "coming in 2007"), not even from his own music store. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same here - can't really find anything other than his own site and personal promo stuff like last.fm and ReverbNation. If you try the "Buy CD now" links for any of his albums on his own site, you get a "Product not found" error. -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. There is a claim of notability per WP:MUSIC - "Has performed in 40 states across the U.S." But this statement needs to be verified. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Willing to reconsider if RS support for notability can be demonstrated, but don't see it.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Siwik

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

A disputed speedy; a PROD tag was removed without addressing the underlying issues. This biography doesn't seem to meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines in any respect; the article was flagged for rescue but apparently did not interest any potential rescuers. Plenty of time and patience have been applied to this article but there are apparently no reliable sources available to bring it within WP:MUSIC guidelines. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that three single-purpose accounts have edited this article, one its creator. The closing administrator will no doubt take this element into consideration. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are starts of notability, but I see two things: one is a current lack of notability, and the other is that it would appear that a promotion agent is doing the work, which brings in issues of conflict of interest and using us to promote something. Once we get some secondary sources on Chad, I have no problem with him being here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has released stuff on iTunes seems to be the strongest claim for notability, which really isn't notable. No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2010 (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.

To clear up some untruths, the strongest claim to notoriety was not having been featured on iTunes. It was (1) having received a considerable amount of views and coverage of a Madonna tribute video featured on many websites with references provided and (2) being included in WeMerge artist magazine, a reliable music publication which did feature and recognize his album Red Flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.71.129 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a previous editor had stated the he was not affiliated with Chad Siwik. This was ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.71.129 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DKFXP

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

fails WP:BAND. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."

Both Kushner and Perez are notable musicians, with Kushner being in Velvet Revolver, Wasted Youth and Dave Navarro's solo band among others, while Perez is a solo artist and currently the (live) guitarist for Scars on Broadway with members of System of a Down. The reason why DKFXP cant be found on Google Archives is because its a kind of a pseudonym given for the release of the songs. The collaberation between the 2 has been mentioned on Blabbermouth link "Dave is currently working on a new music project with singer/songwriter Franky Perez." and Classic Rock link "4. Franky has been working on tracks with Velvet Revolver guitarist Dave Kushner. 6. Frankie abbreviates his name to FXP.". HrZ (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I concur with the rule cited by HrZ above, as there are many notable people in this band. However, at this point it might be too early for an article because the band has not yet done much of note. Until that happens, and if the result of this discussion is to delete, the existence of this project can be noted in the pages for the associated bands and individuals. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well it seems to me that despite the guideline that imputes pure transferred notability, that an ensemble ought to have some claim to notability on its own. --Bejnar (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Pieces of Silver

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

Non-notable: fails WP:BAND StAnselm (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N and WP:BAND. As far as I'm aware "the mp3.com Christian Blues website" is a non-notable chart and they're not signed to any label, let alone a major label. Good faith searches don't appear to return any reliable independent sources although given the generic band name there's a lot of noise drowning out the signal on google. The article itself doesn't provide any help, source-wise. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, use page to redirect to Thirty pieces of silver. --Neutrality^talk 07:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it should redirect to Thirty pieces of silver. In accordance with WP:BRD, I've just made this happen.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, (and I think we've got a consensus) this discussion calls for early closure. StAnselm (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute early closure. The purpose of the seven day AfD is to allow interested parties time to weigh in and find sources, and good sources would be a reason to Keep, if they exist. The article creator or other interested parties might be once-a-week editors, hence the seven days. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I'm with DustFormsWords above. Should the redirect have been done already before the official closure of this AfD? Possible contributors now have to go through many extra steps to find an old version of the article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been two days with no further discussion, so I have de-redirected the page so it will be easier for other users to contribute here if they see fit. I don't think WP:BRD was appropriate for this or any AfD dicussion. The opening paragraph of that guideline says "for identifying objections to edits, breaking deadlocks, keeping discussion moving forward" and "useful when other dispute resolution for a particular wiki is not present, or has currently failed." There was no failed resolution to a hopeless controversy going on in the nomination and first two votes of this AfD. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notwithstanding the procedural stuff above, once someone is able to see the article and do their own research, this band does not meet the notability requirements under WP:BAND. Note that the web search can be made easier if you search for the band's name in addition to one or more members, such as Dale Baty. Nonetheless, they have not achieved any significant coverage in reliable sources; just message board postings, social networking sites (within Christian music) and the like. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to see BRD as a regular feature of AfD discussions either, but in the circumstances I think it was a reasonable judgment call. My logic is that the nomination, and all the "delete" recommendations, are contrary to WP:BEFORE.
Simply put, we can redirect this title to a plausible target, which enables us to avoid deletion; and per WP:BEFORE, since we can avoid deletion, we should.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:18, 20 March 2010 (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. Tim Song (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eksman

oh well fml

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

I cannot find any relevant discussion in reliable sources of this BLP of a musician. I can verify that he probably exists (see this), but that's it. I went through the article and found nothing but unverifiable claims, plus some IP vandalism. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see event announcements in Birmingham. Possibly some local notability but there's a dearth of coverage in reliables sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried to combat IP vandalism on this article, but it was impossible to tell fact from fiction due to the lack a reliable sources. Grim²³ ★ 04:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references to the article therefore it doesn't need to be deleted. 05fallont 09:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - None of the sourcing in the article is what could be deemed reliable. The interview listed is from a site which tells ouy "Anyone can add an article to DontStayIn - click here to add your own!". Discogs is a "user-built database containing information on artists, labels, and their recordings". Rolldabeats is a one man show which is really again a directory/database. Myspace and Facebook being his own sites aren't useful for establishing notability. Nor is that fact that his music is available for sale via download breakbeat notable. Winning the Drum and Bass Awards might be bnotable if it is a be a notable award, but from what I can see, it isn't. -- Whpq (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a reference from his booking agents happy? And it does seem a bit ironic that you are telling me anyone can add an article, when anyone can add an article to wikipedia. I think it is enough proof and it is clear of his existance. The only reason there are a lack of sources is because the music is so underground and has not been adopted by the mainstream. And yes the NATIONAL Drum and Bass Awards are the OFFICIAL awards of drum and bass so they are quite clearly reliable and notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.196.45 (talk)

Reply - I don;t know what you mean by getting a reference from his booking agent. And regardless, it's hardly an independent sources. You may be surprised, but yes, Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Booking agents e.g. the people who you contact to book the artist. 05fallont 22:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Reply - How is that helpful? We are looking for independent reliable sources covering Eksman. His booking agent is hardly that. -- Whpq (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give up with you. How you can get any more reliable than the people who work from day to day with the artist? Your problem is you just won't accept that i'm right. 05fallont 20:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.10.40 (talk) [reply]

Reply - Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is what is being looked for. There was a link to this guideline earlier, but perhaps you missed it. Wikipedia:Independent sources is an essay which may also help understand what is being requested. I hope this helps you understand the type sourcing being requested. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libyans (band)

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

No assertion of notability besides the appearance of one song in Rock Band 2 (the inclusion criteria for which is becoming very large as of late). No sources exist beyond those of blogs or the Myspace page already listed under external links. WaltCip (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all of the WP:BAND criteria. The claim to fame here is that one of their songs, "Neighborhood," is a bonus track on the soundtrack for the Rock Band 2 video game. That's really stretching for notability; this band might be notable one day, but they aren't now. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per A Stop at Willoughby. Ray^Talk 02:26, 22 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Aranda

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

At first blush, a well sourced article that asserts meeting WP:Music. But when you click on the source links, you are left with an empty sinking feeling as you realize there is little or no mention of the subject. I'm having trouble supporting the article with sources. This was previously tagged for WP:CSD#A7, but it does assert significance. It does not have a promotional tone, but we come back to WP:V and WP:RS. To me, made up references are tantamount to vandalism. Did I mention that the article says he's Spanish? So it would be possible for an English speaker like me to miss sources in Spanish. Seeking more eyes to be sure of this. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 01:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 01:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I created a brief article about Aranda some days ago, telling some things with some sources because I saw him in the world record's biggest lipdub at the same time that I found him in some other places in the internet, so I looked for info about him and put it here, but I didn't created the big article that YankeesGrey did. I would change the article if it's really bad sourced to my original one. I do not know YankeesGrey. I don't have spanish people to ask about him.--BryanCrenw (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article on the same subject and under the same name was first created in December of 2009 and deleted by User:Malik Shabazz who reversed himself to allow time for further work. I deleted the article - A7 -on March 5, 2010 and moved it to userspace for development on March6, 2010. User: Yankees Grey was the primary author at that time. The userfied article, which has seen some work, is located here. There are great similarities between the two articles due in part to Yankees Grey working on both. However the above message is odd. JodyB_talk 11:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for an investigation into the possibility that User:BryanCrenw, User:YankeesGrey and User:Mammamiakey, all authors on this article, are the same user and that they are attempting to game the system by using multiple accounts. My request is [this link here].Users have been notified JodyB_talk 11:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:47, 16 March 2010 (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wykked Wytch

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

According to this article's talk page, Wykked Wytch was previously deleted after a proposed deletion but then recreated because the deletion was contested. If this is the case, the band's notability has not been demonstrated since recreation. Unaware of a previous proposed deletion, I proposed the deletion of this article earlier this month. The deletion was contested by User:Fences and windows who stated that references would follow. After five days, he had not done so, therefore I contacted him on his talk page. He affirmed that he would add references soon, however it has been another five days and no references have been produced. Wykked Wytch has produced no notable albums; all four albums have had articles in the past which have subsequently been deleted. This band fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musical ensembles and should therefore be deleted. Neelix (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced now, although band's notability is debatable.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - The references do not demonstrate that the band is notable, therefore they do not justify keeping the article. My search for adequate references apart from those provided on the article has not suggested that the band is notable either. Jimbo W junior acknowledges that the band's notability has not been demonstrated; the article should therefore be deleted. Neelix (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 02:07, 29 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esteban Insinger

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

The Musician really doesn't seem notable enough for an article, the links are all either self-published or barely mention him, google search brings nothing, mostly youtube and myspace links Jac16888 ^Talk 18:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per non, unable to find sources.--SKATER ^Speak. 18:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom and Skater. Not finding coverage of this person RadioFan (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only this article could be considered a reliable source, and it's just not sufficient as it only mentions Insinger in passing. Favonian (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Unlikely of Heroes

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

Non-notable band: not signed to a label, no releases, couldn't win a school talent show. Google search returns tens of thousands of hits, but it's a common phrase; narrowing it down with extra search terms like "band" brings up nothing apart from Wikipedia, and self-publicity like Facebook. No evidence of any third party coverage. Bulk of edits have been by a single editor who has edited no other articles. No evidence of any notability - a legend in their own imaginations. Emeraude (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the above checks out. Has all the hallmarks of a member of a barely-known band creating their own article. Smocking (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability, fails WP:BAND. Not even signed to a label which is probably the barest minimum needed to be notable. Mattg82 (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early Wynn Salter

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

Non-notable musician. I cannot find any references that his song Carolina Lady ever made the Billboard Hot 100. [9] In the first AfD nomination, the Billboard assertion was removed so it was speedily deleted. I'd like to either have someone find references or have this settled through the AfD process. Clubmarx (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice, and salt This keeps being re-created and the guy is just plain not notable. Continual re-creation is tantamount to vandalism. It's been deleted three times now. No references and not reference-able from WP:RS. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The date of closing of the previous deletion discussion is 8 March 2010. The result was "delete" as {{A7}}. I think the {{g4}} is appropriate now. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any references via Google News search. Nuujinn (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. Otherwise, delete for non-notability and unverifiability of the claim to have a charted hit. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Whatever the final deletion reason, I just hope it gets salted WP:SALT. I cannot find sources that would make this person notable and the seemingly false Billboard claim makes the speedy deletes get declined. Clubmarx (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I marked this for speedy delete as {{A7}} which I believe was correct as there is no notability. Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. A7 is not applicable here, but neither Allmusic nor Whitburn's Hot 100 book have a listing for Salter, which is pretty damning as far as charting the Hot 100. Looks to me like the author of the page is trying to fake his way into the history books. Chubbles (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see a WP:SNOWBALL Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Francis (songwriter)

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

This article about a singer-songwriter fails to meet notability through WP:COMPOSER or WP:MUSIC (relevant to COMPOSER #4 is that only award mentioned is for "promising" songwriters according to the award website) or, apparently, any other way. Novaseminary (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ~~very marginal either way.~~ [see below] I PRODed the article a month or so ago when another article on a different John Francis was up for deletion and this article was mentioned. That article was deleted but I deprodded this article after efforts were made to establish notability. I am not convinced, now, that notability has been established: the Sammy Cahn Award is for "a promising lyricist from The ASCAP Foundation Songwriter Workshop Series" [my emphasis]. Thus, it fails WP:MUSIC as it is for "emerging talent" as noted by the nom. My vote is probably Delete but I'll have to check further before committing. Note also that there are a number of songwriters called John Francis, it would seem, so the Google searches will either need to be further refined or manually checked for mis-hits --Jubilee♫clipman 15:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are actually only 36 Google hits for the above combination. I even tried without the dab and checked through manually. None of my searches establish notability, indeed I mainly ended up at Wiki-mirrors and social networking sites alongside a few personal sites etc. Google News returns only what appears to be a minor school event and even then only mentions the subject in passing. Definate NN, I would say --Jubilee♫clipman 16:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jubileeclipman - not yet sufficiently notable to pass our inclusion guidelines. Robofish (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Of the websites used as references, the ASCAP and the UN seem ok, the PJC is okish, and CD Baby is iffy. I'm a bit concenred however, that if there are indeed several singer/songwriters of the same namethat where some of these sites mention just the name John FRancis, are we dealing with the sameone? Is it a questione of the references having been made to fit the article? (this is not an accusation, but we don't know this). Under BLP rules, we can't afford to give the article the benefit of doubt.--Kudpung (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Metcalf

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

Procedural nomination after proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion. The proposed deletion concern was "'notability not established". Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per db-person. Looks like a self-promotion piece. Dew Kane (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2010 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vann Johnson

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

WP:BIO notability Alan - talk 02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm^(Talk) 23:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet notability guidelines with the references at the bottom North North-West (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about the references doesn't establish notability? They look fine to me. Silver seren^C 03:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there an echo echo in here? Why is this person listed twice? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd like more references, but he seems to be notable per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
He meets the qualifications for WP:MUSIC. Silver seren^C 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – NN backup singer, no significant awards or WP:RS coverage except as a footnote in articles for other musicians. Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) _{17:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
- Comment: Apparently some of the editors who wish to Keep the article have failed to note that the subject is female! — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as author). Passes #10 at WP:Music, Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.; namely, her role as a featured vocalist (not backup singer) for the album and video Tribute (Yanni album) which reached #1 on Billboard's charts, and also for her featured vocalist role for the television series The Singing Bee (U.S. game show). ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2010 (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uziah Thompson

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

Non-notable session musician. Ridernyc (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Non-notable session musician" is again a ridiculous description. The most important reggae musicians have worked as session musicians, and Thompson is important enough to have his own entry in David Moskowitz's Caribbean Popular Music: an Encyclopedia of Reggae, Mento, Ska, Rock Steady, and Dancehall.--Michig (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He also received significant coverage in David Katz's book People Funny Boy as well as coverage in most of the other good books on reggae, and this gives some idea of how many recordings he has contributed to, and it only covers his album work up to the mid-1980s. He played in Bob Marley's band, and Marley described him as a "legendary" musician.[10] More recently he has worked with Anen,[11], Sinead O'Connor,[12], and Michael Franti,[13] to name just a few. He is one of the most important percussionists in the history of Jamaican music.--Michig (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Given that I have demonstrated significant coverage, your !vote makes no sense.--Michig (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An easy one, given the indicated sources reflecting notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources show an extended career working with artists whose notability is unimpeachable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:26, 22 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Samuels

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

Non-notable session musician. Ridernyc (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to say about this guy's work beyond sessions for more notable acts. Possibly redirect to Burning Spear because he has contributed to several of that artist's albums. Otherwise delete due to lack of independent notability per WP:MUSICBIO. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish independent notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:31, 22 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Stamey

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

Prod removed. No reliable sources to establish notability of a musician. Google News didn't turn up anything promising. Plenty of sources are given as references, but they are blogs, facebook/myspace links, or alternative papers (MetroPulse). tedder (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a vanity page, insufficient sourcing leads me to believe the subject is non-notable, better sourcing and this could be better DRosin (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BAND, Google shows little, and the use of blogs as references is wholly unacceptable. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 06:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, fails WP:BAND. Lots of references, none are reliabel. RadioFan (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nachtblut

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

Unnotable musical group; self-released albums - not signed in any major label; refs are in german and unclear if considered reliable sources. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are three problems at work here. First of all, though there's never really been a consensus on foreign-language sources, I believe that there should be at least [i]some[/i] English-language sources for any article here because otherwise the pool of Wikipedians able to maintain and improve the article becomes too small. Second, the German Wikipedia has the corresponding page; while their standards for inclusion are stricter, I believe that we should give some credence to their decisions regarding topics where the available sources are in German. Finally, the subject fails to pass WP:MUSIC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:22, 22 March 2010 (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. Tone 18:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zanja 8

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

No assertion of notability. No reliable sources. No usable sources found in Google. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. At this point, I wouldn't oppose a speedy deletion under A7, but I'm not going to go so far as to tag it. I'm just not that WP:BOLD :) --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources, some of it fairly in-depth coverage (for example) but it's all in the Redlands Daily Facts or The Sun, which are local newspapers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article, as written, lacks sources and covers a subject that fails WP:MUSIC. It is unclear whether the local news sources mentioned above are truly independent. The example cited appears, stylistically, to be an except from publicity material. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:14, 22 March 2010 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nivram

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

Declined prod. My original reasoning for prod was "Article about an unnotable tribute band, searches fail to turn up the significant coverage required. Only reference given is that of their agents.". This was inaccurate though, the reference isn't for their agents - its for that of the Bootleg Beatles, and doesnt mention them. Reason given for declining prod was "clearly notable as one of the first tribute bands..." but i see no evidence for this so bringing here for your consideration. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prior to this article being brought here to AfD, I've added a reference for the album having charted in Argentina, although I can't find a ref online. A book reference will suffice though, and thus the band satisfy criterion #2 at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. The evidence for them being one of the first tribute bands is a simple deduction from the dates. There is no attempt to make the reference you mentioned say something it doesn't - the ref states that the Bootleg Beatles claim to be the world's first tribute band, formed in 1980. Nivram were formed the same year, making the fact pretty clear. Again, I only have a written reference for this, from the album sleeve, but it is nonetheless adequate in my opinion. Online mention of the band is admittedly scant, but this is due to their activity being solely in Spain and Latin America, and before the rise of the internet. It does not necessarily mean they are not notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The place to find it would be here, according to the wikipedia sourcing guide, which I'd try myself if I spoke the lingo. As for the mathematics, thats not the case, as it doesn't allow for any other bands which may have formed in between. Sleeve liner notes are primary sources and not reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried there, but it does not show charts from that far back. Regarding the mathematics, we are talking about the time period between the end of March 1980 and July 1980 - not a huge amount of room for a large number of tribute bands to be formed. In any case, they were almost certainly the first tribute band formed in Spain, and I am trying to source that. An album sleeve may not be a reliable source with regard to a contentious issue, but we are only talking about the date a band was formed. The guideline I found states that "Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution..." not that they cannot be used. This kind of primary source requires a secondary source to avoid WP:OR, which is the role played by the Gordon Poole Agency source. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there does not appear to be any significant coverage by independent reliable sources as required by the general notability guideline. Any additional claim of notability must be backed up by reliable sources, extrapolating a claim from a date and other information is original research. As it is, the Wikipedia article on Tribute Bands suggests that there were some around in the 60's and 70's. Additionally even if it true the fact that no reliable sources discuss it seems to indicate that being one of the first tribute bands is not a particularly notable historic achievement. I can find no information on whether they charted or any information on the publication cited in the article, notability requires "verifiable objective evidence". Guest9999 (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that neither Nivram's chart activity, nor the long-out-of-print Argentine book I have which outlines it, are mentioned on the internet, opens up the problem that often plagues more obscure subjects. The written word is still bigger than the internet in the respect that there is a wealth of information available in books that the internet has not found. The music notability criteria which states that notability is bestowed upon acts which have charted in any country is badly hamstrung by the expectation that 50-60 years of chart history in every country in the world will be somewhere on the internet. It isn't. Sometimes obscure books will be required and it's a shame if that's not acceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that paper sources - sometimes obscure ones - can be essential when building the encyclopaedia. In this case however as I can find absolutely no information about the book there is no way to evaluate if it is a reliable source. Can you provide any more information, publisher, notes, ISBN, etc.? I would also note that what is stated in Wikipedia:Notability (music) is that "A musician or ensemble... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" (emphasis added) - this implies that there are instances where bands that have charted may not be notable. Cases like this where there is an almost complete dearth of coverage may fall into that category. Guest9999 (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book publisher is Grupo Editorial San Rafael, but I can't find anything about them online - they may well have been relatively insignificant and/or defunct. No ISBN number, which I had realised isn't very helpful. Many smaller South American publishers (not so usually Argentine but often Paraguayan, Uruguyan, Chilean etc) were very slow in adopting the ISBN. The author appears to have been a local radio DJ. Point taken about the wording of the notability criteria. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I am sympathetic to the problems of sourcing, the real difficulty here is that the subject isn't notable and the strongest claims are not sourced at all ("one of the earliest tribute bands"). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sourcing is a problem, but this appears mainly to be an issue of obscure sourcing rather than no sourcing at all. I accept that the book source is obscure, but it exists nonetheless. I disagree that the subject isn't notable, in fact I am certain of notability, both in terms of the "earliest tribute band" status and the chart activity - the problem is the nature of the sources. I think it is fairly clear that they were a very early tribute band, and to say that's WP:OR is a little picky in my opinion. Wikipedia (or any other source) can only throw up two older bands, The Buggs and The Bootleg Beatles, the latter only being months older. I would add that that The Buggs article is even less well-sourced than Nivram and they did not chart anywhere to my knowledge. It is claimed on the list at Tribute band that they were "one of the earliest tribute bands", with no cite. This may suggest that this stuff is just not well-sourced, and this does not mean it is not notable material. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know how we could expect to find a definite answer as to what the first tribute band ever was. I note that this 1979 New York magazine item, which predates the establishment of the Bootleg Beatles, refers to a Fats Waller tribute band. The source cited in this article saying that the Bootleg Beatles were the first tribute band doesn't specifically make that claim. Another one of the sources used in this article calls Nivram "totally obscure", and a third source is the liner notes to the band's own album. So if this article is to survive, it would seem that the justification for it to do so would be either (a) extensive coverage in reliable independent sources, which I don't see here; or (b) confirmation that Nivram's album actually did hit the record charts somewhere. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, a clarification of the claim in that article that the Bootleg Beatles were the first tribute band - towards the end of the third paragraph, the world's first tribute band were ready for a fresh challenge. This is a reproduction of the text on their own website (which would probably make a better source) here [14]. With regard to determining the first tribute band, I agree that it could be difficult, particularly given that sources seem hard to come by. But this surely does not mean that it's not a notable feat. The other problem is that the term "tribute band" could also be used to describe a band of musicians brought together simply to pay tribute to another artist, as, I suspect, in the Fats Waller case, without their actually being what we think of today as a tribute band, i.e. a band that tours and performs solely as a clone act of the original subject. I am still looking for further sources, and I may have to wait till my next trip to Spain to find them - if this article is deleted in the meantime, I can always bring it back with new sources. I'm a bit frustrated that the book source that I did find, that verified the chart entry, is rather obscure in itself, and there's no trace of the book on the net. I do understand how that makes life difficult. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, having missed the reference in the third paragraph quoted by Bretonbanquet. However, I hope we can agree that the Bootleg Beatles' web site referring to themselves as the "world's first tribute band", and their agent quoting that description on the agency's web site, do not constitute reliable, independent sources that the Bootleg Beatles really were the first tribute band. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely agreed, but there are other, more acceptable sources such as these [15], [16] which say the same thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable claim to notability, no secondary source coverage. The single offhand mention in the Scotland Herald may well be based on Wikipedia research. Gigs (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2010 (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. Sandstein 10:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kottarashky

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

Non-notable musician lacking GHit and GNEW of substance. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Bulgarian musician releases an album and it gets reviewed in The Independent and in The Guardian... that seems already like a pretty good indication of notability. I'd lean towards keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An apparently well-sourced article demonstrating significant coverage of the artist's work. Good encyclopaedic content. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep passes GnG but fails WP:MUSIC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:03, 22 March 2010 (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Hëwitt

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}}.

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

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by RHaworth (talk · contribs) with the rationale "no evidence of notability." The article creator explicitly objected to deletion on the talk page, thereby failing the primary criteria for deletion by prod, so I'm bringing it here. I should note that the article has been deleted twice as A7.

~~I am neutral for now.~~ —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 (Person). None of the tags in there connote notability. Not tagged yet. Reads like a CV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. (GregJackP (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT as this fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on marginality of notability and messiness of the article. A cheap redirect and merger to Gorerotted, of which is was a band member, is an easy way out. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the fact that IMDB credits and links to external verifications now exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty Forty 080 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC) — Twenty Forty 080 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment IMDb is not a [WP:SOURCE|reliable source]]. (GregJackP (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Google search for David C. Hëwitt (aka David Charles Hewitt) returns many results for CD releases etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Are Release (talk • contribs) 10 March 2010 — Are Release (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment CD releases alone are not indicative of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment On the contrary, much like Wikipedia IMDb has very strict rules as to which films and artists they allow on their site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty Forty 080 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:NF for the use of IMDb as a verifiable, reliable source for Wikipedia. The notability guideline specifically excludes the use of IMDb as a source of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - There's no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment To appear on their database IMDb require a much higher level of notability than Wikipedia's minimum.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Are Release (talk • contribs) — Duplicate !vote: Are Release (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Comment - perhaps, but we're not on IMDb, we are on WP, and the WP standards preclude the use of IMDb to establish notability. The sources used by IMDb can be used, you just can't use IMDb itself. (GregJackP (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

- Please, only one!vote per customer. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy played lead guitar with the biggest death metal band to come out of the UK (Gorerotted) who signed to the biggest metal label in the world (Metal Blade). And for fans like me it’s good to read about their history they’re awesome musicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die Kappelmeister (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC) — Die Kappelmeister (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable sources and smells like written by his agent. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Generally though persons of note do employ agents to guide their careers and write press releases for them - that is how it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty Forty 080 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is not the place to put press releases. (GregJackP (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - Semantics - generally persons of note do employ agents to guide their careers and write 'Wikipedia' articles for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty Forty 080 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Actually no. Notable people get written about before any publicist is needed to write it for them. -- Whpq (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One should note that all of the unsigned comments have contributed ONLY to this page or the article in question,and are possibly socks of the original creator, Are Release. Second, the sources cited state that this is an up-and-coming (maybe) composer, and is therefore not notable. Therefore, Delete. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See this link for some 'notable composers of orchestral soundtracks': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_score#Orchestral_film_scoresAre Release (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- You can't use Wikipedia as a source, let alone to demonstrate notability. And let's not ignore the fact that you added his name to that article yourself: [17]. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why was this relisted? All of the keep !votes are by SPA's and all of their arguments amount to "I like it" or "it's on IMDb". Most of the references on the article are not independent of the subject, one is a Wikipedia article which the article creator edited to add Mr. Hewitt's name, and another may be reliable but doesn't establish notability in my view. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am changing my !vote from neutral to delete per my comment above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are either PR info or, in the case of onenightatthecurtain, inaccessible. (I keep all popups blocked, and this site seems inaccessible unless popups are enabled for it. If people are stupid enough to work like that when they create a site, OK. I just don't visit them.) And the other two are Wikipedia and IMDb - neither accepted here as reliable references. As yet unpublished articles don't count. Apart from that, he's a man (sorry, person) doing a job. Not a John Williams yet. Some day, maybe. Peridon (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither the article nor any argument above convinces me this passes WP:MUSIC. And I echo KuyaBriBri's sentiment: I don't see why this was relisted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps because WP:RELISTINGISEVIL??? (just kidding, I've nominated that ridiculous page for deletion too.) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 17:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - If you choose not to access a reference source on an external website because you feel 'pop ups are stupid' that is hardly the fault of the person in the article and is an irrelevant comment.

Irrelevant comment Popups aren't stupid - most of them are money-spinning adverts that I don't want to know about. The people that insist on them, or on the latest version of Flash (for another case), are. They lose visitors if they are not prepared to give a more accessible option for those using slower machines just for the sake of being, err, flash... The link was given in the article. If I can't access it, others won't be able to either. Not my loss. Possibly yours, if it's your site. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Seemingly, it appears information about the subject matter (or an article) may only be added to the Wikipedia pages by persons who have no knowledge of the subject matter itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Are Release (talk • contribs) 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That is only one editor, dealing with one problematic link. The reality is that the "onenightatthecurtain" site is for the TV pilot the article's subject worked on. It also fails to be an independent reliable source for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summary Here is my summary about the status of this article and deletion debate. It has many problems including:

Notability: No demonstration of notability, and no outside sources other than the IMDB. Clearly fails the guidelines
References: Referenced to other Wikipedia articles and the IMDB, not accepted sources. It also is clearly not done in the correct style.
The Author: The author has practically admitted to being an agent of the person who this article is written about, has created meatpuppets to sway the vote of this afd, and has repeatedly demonstrated their lack of knowledge of the way Wikipedia works (people can be hired to create Wikipedia articles, NPOV and citation issues).
Flawed Arguments: The creator claims here that "creating, managing and updating a page is a time consuming business. I will adhere to all of the necessary editing protocols in time but it is frustrating to have to restart the same article over and over from scratch." If the article does not belong on WP, then it does not belong. Unless he becomes more notable, and can have reliable sources found, then most of the article is unencylopedic and constitutes original research.
The Numbers: Over 10 trusted WP editors have voted to delete, upholding the Notability policy. The only keep votes come from the creator as discussed above and his/her meatpuppets (SPAs).

The above five points clearly show why Deleting this article Right Now is necessary. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I asked the admin who relisted this article why he relisted it when consensus clearly leaned towards delete and he left me this response on my talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem here is twofold. First, we don't have any substantive, independent sources, just credits. That causes this article to fail the GnG. Second, it's not clear that the subject would pass WP:MUSIC although it's a near miss in a couple of areas. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ran-Tan Waltz

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

Contested PROD, and as it stands, fails WP:BAND. Sources mostly self-published, and one mention in a local newspaper and a handful of radio plays cannot make them notable. Rodhull andemu 15:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I hadn't realised this had already been listed in January, but then its authors didn't defend it, although somebody has contested the PROD. Well, the band weren't notable then, and nothing has changed. Rodhull andemu 15:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently fails all points of WP:BAND. If their live shows in "many cities up and down the country" can be sourced by a non-trivial source, they might just barely scrape by - though, since their first show brought "16 people" and "descended into an anarchic demolition of equipment", I doubt it's possible. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 19:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ...for now they don't have notability (notoriety? This is a punk band after all). Perhaps soon they will, but then it can be re-created. --Kickstart70TC 00:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, delete the page if its upsetting so many people. Quite sad really. Surely more important things in life, than debating wether an article is 'worthy' of keeping. Oh, if it does go, and we become 'notable' at a later date, we will forbid our name to be used on this site. I dont like the idea of people 'only wanting to know' when it suits them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.196.17 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added the venues to the wiki we've played. Let me know here what proof of 'notability' we need here and i'll get onto it. Not that im sure its worth it, if the site is full of people with nothing better to do than find faults with articles that arent hurting anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.196.17 (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude is not helping the situation here. Just saying. If you want to convince us to keep your article, trying to threaten us with "forbidding your name" doesn't help. Threats don't work on Wikipedia. My vote remains delete. Your sources do not show that you have done a national tour, only one show that you have performed. This band still fails all criteria of WP:BAND. If you can find a source that shows you have done multiple shows through your country, I will change to weak keep. Your article CLAIMS that you have, but it remains outsourced. And if you're really "not sure it's worth it", why add more sources? Just say you want it gone and it can be speedy deleted. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 18:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a real easy comeback: WP:NOTMYSPACE. The band member above all but admitted that they're using WP for self-promotion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if they are going to forbid WP from using their name in the future, why not do the same now? I was actually leaning toward "Weak Keep" because a couple of the recently-added references seem serviceable. But researching those sources was quite sad of me because there are surely more important things in life. Yes, so many other things are more important that I have already forgotten the name of this band. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree that they're not doing themselves any favours with their attitude, neither are they familiar with our notability guidelines on bands. However, they may be very good, but this far have failed to meet our criteria for inclusion, and that, sadly for many such bands, is the bottom line. Should they become notable in some future form, fine. Until then, no. Rodhull andemu 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone give me an example of "a source that shows you have done multiple shows through your country". We have been in alot more magazines/internet sites, but i didnt want to add too many to the references because i thought people might get bored of it. Sorry for the attitude earlier, i just cant believe so many people are that upset at our page they are contesting it so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.219.12 (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is "upset" at your page, it's just that rules are rules, and the rules say that this page should be deleted. It's nothing personal, nobody is mad, it's just simply rules. That being said, no, I can't give you an example. If I had an example that proves you've done multiple shows in your country, I'd add it to the article myself. You claim you've been in magazines and websites, but have yet to show that. Nobody is going to "get bored" of having sources. Mostly, we are looking for something that is not a local paper or website, something that is national or, even better, international, about your band or your shows. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 13:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few links to the ticket details etc from gigs from the last tour I could find on the net... let me know if you need anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.89.16 (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fab Shield 8 Band

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

Unsourced and hasn't credibly established notability Eeekster (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and I can find no reliable sources writing about this band. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 14 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nivelu' 4

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nivelu' 4

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

Article was CSD'd under A7 3 separate times on 6-MAR, and subsequently deleted. This 4th iteration is not much different. Fails WP:MUSIC, however, creator appears to wish to see community discussion towards deletion. Wholly non-notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Of the two references that aren't the bands social networking links, one is from blogspot and one is just a concert listing. There are two unlinked references that look like books. I highly doubt they've been mentioned in books if there is no reliable coverage on the internet. Doesn't pass anything in WP:MUSIC. Clubmarx (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marci Geller

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

Sources aren't enough. No non-trivial coverage found; label links to a cartoon instead of a label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a number of sources. She appears to be very notable. Silver seren^C 01:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I moved those to the talk page for possible use.- Sinneed 03:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they have to be moved? They're fine where they are. If we decide that some of them are not notable, then they can be taken out, but they should be left in the article until then. Silver seren^C 03:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have wp:EL.- Sinneed 07:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that comment was made before I fixed it. Now there's only six EL, which isn't a ridiculous number. Is that good enough or do I need to do more work? Silver seren^C 08:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – meets WP:MUSICBIO with coverage in multiple sources. I added a citation to The New York Times which confirms that she "toured the United States and Europe, has gotten her songs onto the soundtracks of many TV shows." Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Paul.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham 6 (band)

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

Although they have dalliances with other notable bands, notability is not inherited, and without any independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, this band fails the guidelines for inclusion. A major contributor has no other edits apart from this article, and is called, erm, Birmingham6, so conflict of interest issues too, which although not proving unnotability certainly doesn't help its case. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of standalone notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources showing notability can be added to the article. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC#5 - two or more releases on a notable indie label (Cleopatra records in this case), as per their Discogs page. Lugnuts (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five albums on Cleopatra Records, decent Allmusic bio, and Allmusic reviews.--Michig (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig; I also added a quote cited to an American newspaper in 1997, that they were "among industrial music's most compelling bands". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Fire

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

Band itself does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Can't find any references to just the band. Sources on the page are either concert listings or just talk about the group's "Eternal Christmas" installation. Looking for opinions on this one. avs5221 (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puffy writing, no non-trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete C6541 (T↔C) 00:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced by multiple sources, including the New York Times. Dew Kane (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject (not just a band, but an artist collective) has had sufficient coverage of its work to meet the general notability guideline, including articles in The New York Times, Vice, and I also added a feature article about them from the Omaha World-Herald. Furthermore, the article I added which was carried on the newswire Religion News Service was reprinted in the San Antonio Express-News, the Houston Chronicle, The Times-Picayune, and the Regina Leader-Post. The World-Herald article states that the group's illustrated Bible project has had "worldwide" interest. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per typical, excellent work by Paul (better for noms to do it, and avoid this entire process next time).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whorecore

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

Only sources are primary or unreliable. Fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band and albums are self release and fail WP:NALBUM -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I looked through about five pages of links on Google, and the only things I can find are self-promoted coverage through Myspace and YouTube, and some blog notes, nothing that would make it pass WP:BAND. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable 3rd party references IJA (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of clearing the WP:BAND notability bar. No references from third person reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. (GregJackP (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Not notable enough; Myspace is only reference, as far as I can tell. Pilif 12p (contribs) 02:17, 21 March 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cologne Classical Ensemble

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

Lack of notability. Has been marked with {{notability}} for quite some time. The only third-party mentions I was able to find on the internet are articles in local German newspapers, which do not suffice to constitute notability. Carabinieri (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the coverage is certainly in local and regional newspapers, however taken together they are covering the whole area of Western Germany including Aachen, Cologne, Dortmund, Bonn, Koblenz. Also, there is a recension of their album in Neue Musikzeitung, the leading German magazine covering all styles of music. Finally, they have two recordings on a major label (Sony). Seems to be enough for basic notability. PanchoS (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BAND, "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" don't prove notability. All newspaper mentionings I was able to find merely announce the ensemble's concert dates, so that definately falls under "trivial coverage". As far as I'm able to tell, they have only released one album with Sony. That only leaves the album review in Neue Musikzeitung, which surely isn't enough to establish notability.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough notability here. Removed notability tag and changed to expand, which will be necessary if this escapes AfD. avs5221 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind telling us why this topic is notable?--Carabinieri (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I originally voted keep per this WP:BAND criteria: "Has released two or more albums on a major label." I did more digging on this and their "second" CD per PanchoS is a compilation CD on which CCE only has one song. With that taken into consideration, they do not meet WP:MUSIC. My apologies, Carabinieri. avs5221 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to beat a dead horse...while I think Carabinieri has a point to the publishing clause of WP:MUSIC, I also think PanchoS has a claim to "non-trivial published works." See: here, here, here, here, here, cd review, cd review, and here. There are many more on the CCE website. I hate contradicting myself, but I'd rather get it right. avs5221 (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided are adequate for our purpose. No useful purpose is served by continually relisting this as there is clearly no consensus to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2010 (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 Fading. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elad Manor

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

Not individually notable. The Fading may be notable, but the other acts he's been in aren't. No secondary sources about Manor proper. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 04:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no coverage in a search of Google News archives, and none in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion might benefit from extra time, given that the AfD message was removed on 5 March, and put back on 14 March. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Fading, as he is a member of that band. I can find nothing to establish any independent notability for him specifically as a musician. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks references and does not substantiate independent notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:48, 22 March 2010 (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. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Smallen

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

I can find no coverage in independent reliable sources to show he meets the notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. JD554 (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also cannot find any sign of notability. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2010 (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.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ==Bands and musicians==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Hahn}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeds Dead}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annah Moore}}

Revision as of 13:43, 20 March 2010

Bands and musicians

Bands and musicians Templates for deletion

Categories