Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:54, 24 June 2010

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Music

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

The result was keep. no consensus for deleting - any merging can be discussed at the talk page JForget 14:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placid Casual

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

Non-Notable company, Fails WP:CORP, only claim to any form of notability is that of association. Codf1977 (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Super Furry Animals. Surely option other than deletion can be considered?--Michig (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can - and don't call me Shirly... The worst case option for this is to redirect to the bands' article, per point 4. Lugnuts (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"before nominating an article for deletion" - I like the sound of that.--Michig (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the label has put out albums by numerous bands, most of whom are notable. By the nominator's logic no record companies would have articles. Cavie78 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge at the very least. The label has taken on notable bands, and WP:INHERITED is not really a valid counter-argument here. Being the record label and essentially the contracting agency behind a notable group of musicians is different than if this were an article about, say, one of the band member's sister. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily notable, was this nominated as a joke or something? Jeni ^(talk) 23:25, 20 June 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. –MuZemike 18:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Breakdown World Tour

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

Contested PROD. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours: No information other than a list of dates & locations. Concert tours are assumed non-notable unless aspects such as artistic approach, financial success, etc. are covered in independent sources. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are insufficient to support encyclopedic coverage. IllaZilla (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First passes WP:GNG. Plenty of coverage in the press for each night, rather than the tour as a whole. How do you gauge "financial success" when the tour is only 3/4 complete? Nominator fails to also mention the concert tour notability guidelines include "relationship to audience" bit, which I've included in the article with references (and other general refs to). Lugnuts (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You included 2 sources describing 2 gigs in which the singer shoots water & t-shirts into the crowd & pulls people up to sing along. The majority of the article's 10 sources merely give listings of dates or names of support acts, and as the guidelines says source which merely establish that a tour happened are insufficient. Also, FWIW, Green Day have been firing t-shirts and toilet paper into the crowd at their shows for about 10 years. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you'll be withdrawing your nomination now, as this article clearly meets the criteria you've linked to - IE the relationship to the audience. Lugnuts (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. 2 reviews of 2 shows on the entire tour are insufficient to support a separate article on the entire tour. If the Wembley show is notable for the size of the audience, that's easily mentioned in the main article about the band (and probably should be regardless). --IllaZilla (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a question. And there are more than 2 reviews. Lugnuts (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green Day per nom and reply by IllaZilla above. — Jeff G. ツ 18:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to merge? You certainly can't merge the long list of tour dates... At best you could add a couple of sentences to the Green Day article stating that they toured in support of the album, & what parts of the world were covered. But that's not really a merge, that's a couple of all-new sentences one would have to write. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The sources in the article are enough to indicate notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours specifically states "Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are insufficient to support encyclopedic coverage." 7 of the article's 9 sources are merely announcements of tour dates and support acts. The other 2 are reviews of 2 specific gigs. Hardly enough to support an encyclopedia article about the tour as a whole. If the Wembley gig in particular is notable for the size of the audience, this is easily mentioned in the main article about the band. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a major tour. If reviews from independent sources are required to established notability then a section with such information can be added to the article. Deleting the article entirely is jumping the gun a bit. (Freak.scenery (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Keep - Tour is also notable for the quality of the support acts. A large number of notable bands have supported on this tour, including AFI, Rise Against, Paramore, Franz Ferdinand, Jet, and Joan Jett, among others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.77.150 (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable tour with all the sources there, but my problem with the article is that long list of concert dates. Wikipedia is not pollstar.com. Maybe a link to the page with the concert dates would be better? JForget 14:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that have been added are used to verify merely 1 sentence. The other sources merely verify the dates. Trim those away and you have 1 referenced sentence about the significance of the tour...that the band shot water and t-shirts into the crowd (which, by the way, they have done on almost every tour for the past 10 years). Wow. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how you cut it, this now meets the guidelines you originally claimed it didn't. Lugnuts (talk) 17:58, 27 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase Records

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

Non-Notable student record label. Unreferenced. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 15:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nominator appears not to have seen the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: editors appear not to have found those sources in the preceding four and a half years. — Jeff G. ツ 18:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But those sources were found (easily), and identified on the article's talk page, well before you nominated it for deletion. I find it worrying that you appear neither to have searched for sources nor looked at the article's talk page before deciding that it should be deleted.--Michig (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the label has earned 3 Grammy nominations, wouldn't that establish notability? The claim is made on the college website, but an outside source would be nice. JNW (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. JNW (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the references now found. Lugnuts (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cavie78 (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:08, 20 June 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. no one in favor of deletion MINUS the nom JForget 14:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Johnson Records

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

Non-Notable company, Fails WP:CORP. Codf1977 (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a record label, and an important one from the 1980s. If it had been run as a 'company' it may not have gone out of business. Ron Johnson Records was one of the most significant (genuine) independent labels of the 1980s, contributing five tracks to the NME's era-defining C86 compilation, and releasing 34 records of which 12 were hits on the independent chart. Like most 1980s labels, the bulk of the coverage that exists is in print magazines such as NME, Melody Maker, etc., that are not available online. Label owner Dave Parsons was included in International Who's Who in Popular Music 2002 based on this label - the book lists Ron Johnson Records as winning the award for Independent Label of the Year in 1986. Google Books shows plenty of sources, most without preview available. The fansite linked in the article is by Rhodri Marsden - journalist for The Independent and keyboard player in Scritti Politti. The label's sound is still being identified as an influence today (see this). Deleting this would be really silly.--Michig (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cavie78 (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Part of a series of bad faith nominations by this user. Jeni ^(talk) 10:59, 21 June 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) 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deck Cheese

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

Non-Notable company, Fails WP:CORP, only claim to any form of notability is that of association. Codf1977 (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable lable and promotional. --Wintonian (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 June 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) 01:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyraka

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources AJRG (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 19 June 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) 23:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything on it except for its own website. Clearly not notable. Richard Ye^talk 01:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. This project hasn't even been released yet, so not a big surprise. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 28 June 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. No objection to redirecting to an appropriate target. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Burley

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

This individual's claim to notability is that he partially backed the record company that discovered Loretta Lynn, no independent sources are listed. It isn't a good sign when the first result from a google search for Norm Burley is about a rugby player, the results that are actually related are trivial mentions. Coverage issues aside, this seems to run afoul of WP:BLP1E. 2 says you, says two 15:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, and I was aware of that when I created the page (somewhat hastily) by putting "definitely a stub" on that edit's description. I also know that in creating the page I didn't do enough to establish notability, but I'm working on that, as you can see. However, here's why I think the page ought to remain on WP as a standalone article (rather than a redirect to Zero Records or some similar page): When I created this article, it already had 4 articles linking to it through "dead links" - Don Grashey, Zero Records, Loretta Lynn and Oliver Lynn. This seems to indicate two notable events: 1)Co-founding and financial backing of Zero Records with Don Grashey and 2)Discovery and support for the career of Loretta Lynn. Grashey's page and Zero Records mention little of Loretta Lynn - focusing instead on the record company, which supported many additional artists. Oliver and Loretta Lynn's pages mention Zero Records in a very different light, focusing primarily on Burley's work as a part of Zero Records to help jumpstart Loretta's career. I added a quote to the Norm Burley page from a cited work that emphasizes his significance in Lynn's career.

Rather than say "he partially backed the record company that discovered Loretta Lynn", I would suggest that, more accurately, "he discovered and recruited Loretta Lynn and partially backed Zero Records". As referenced in several published works (see third bullet, below), he was almost singularly responsible for discovering and jump-starting her remarkable career - he provided financial support, made the first printings of her album that garnered her first airplay (a process that is prominent in Coal Miner's Daughter, an Oscar-winning film).
I know very little about the Don Grashey side of things - I am mostly familiar with Loretta Lynn's story, but was interested in learning more about Norm Burley and Zero Records. It appears that Loretta Lynn herself may not have been the only reason Burley was involved with Grashey or Zero Records, as indicated by the Zero Records page.
One of the points in WP:BLP1E is that inclusion of individuals significant for only one event can overemphasize the importance of an event. As stated earlier, I believe that Burley was significant for two events, but even just focusing on the Loretta Lynn side of the situation, I think it's unlikely that overemphasizing the importance will be a problem. The most common biographical work on Loretta Lynn is the movie Coal Miner's Daughter, which won an Oscar and is played frequently on television stations. Printed works have stated that the movie underemphasized Burley's significance ^[1]. So this article may actually help emphasize significance of the event in a more appropriate way. He has been mentioned in several printed works, including Country Music Culture: from Hard Times to Heaven by Curtis Ellison^[2], Coal Miner's Daughter (book) by Loretta Lynn and Vecsey (1977), and 2002's Still Woman Enough, yet receives little recognition in more pedestrian discussions of Lynn's career. Davemcarlson (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 2 says you, says two 11:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Loretta Lynn#1960 – 1966: Early country success. WP:BIO1E applies as all he is known for is seeing her perform and funding the release of her first single on a one-shot record label. That's it. He's not notable as all the coverage that exists is passing mentions in the context of Lynn's career. Fences&Windows 23:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Loretta Lynn. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:49, 4 July 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. — Scientizzle 19:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin McGillis

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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)

Does not meet the general notability guidelines. Certainly fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN Lincolnite (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - possible merge to election article. GregJackP (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable concert promoter, owner of notable record company and notable political activist, plenty of news sources can be found, see, MTV, Yahoo Music, ITUNES, Billboard Magazine, Countless other news clips on his record label see, News Clips, His concert tours included James Brown, Rapper Producer Dr. Dre, Menudo, Expose, The Jets and many others, see, Concert Tours, he has also embargoed a Menudo concert in San Juan Puerto Rico San Juan Star Newspaper, in Politics he received over 39,000 votes in the 2008 Clerk of the Circuit Court Race in Miami Florida, he sued the Elections Department when they placed his name incorrectly on the ballot see, Lawsuit, he was the only candidate to take a stand for Gay Marriage in the Florida Governors race and said so in the South Florida Gay Newspaper, and recently in the Miami Herald called out Alex Sink the lead candidate for Governor for being against Gay Marriage on religios grounds Miami Herald June 16 2010 it's clear that Mr. McGillis is notable Concert Promoter, Record Label Executive and Gay Rights Political Activist. Please do not use Wikipedia as a playground to voice opposition to political candidates who oppose your views or whom you do not like, do that at the polls. This nomination appears to have been sparked by a Alex Sink supporter as it comes immediately after the Miami Herald article came out and this is improper. A simple Google search of Darrin McGillis shows he is more notable than what wikipedia requires and this nomination seems to be just a political move by those who do not like Mr. McGillis stand and views on Gay Marriage and Gay Rights.--98.242.241.252 (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As the person who proposed this article for deletion, let me just reply to the charge that "This nomination appears to have been sparked by a Alex Sink supporter". Having never been to Florida and living over 4,000 miles away, I can assure you that I have no opinion whatsoever on who should be elected Governor of Florida. In fact, I had only faintly heard of Alex Sink prior to this discussion. --Lincolnite (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Strong KEEP very notable Google Search Results Leave No Doubt. I also adopt the sourced links above for keeping.--Dymo400 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat what was said above: *Keep - notable concert promoter, owner of notable record company and notable political activist, plenty of news sources can be found, see, MTV, Yahoo Music, ITUNES, Billboard Magazine, Countless other news clips on his record label see, News Clips, His concert tours included James Brown, Rapper Producer Dr. Dre, Menudo, Expose, The Jets and many others, see, Concert Tours, he has also embargoed a Menudo concert in San Juan Puerto Rico San Juan Star Newspaper, in Politics he received over 39,000 votes in the 2008 Clerk of the Circuit Court Race in Miami Florida, he sued the Elections Department when they placed his name incorrectly on the ballot see, Lawsuit, he was the only candidate to take a stand for Gay Marriage in the Florida Governors race and said so in the South Florida Gay Newspaper, and recently in the Miami Herald called out Alex Sink the lead candidate for Governor for being against Gay Marriage on religios grounds Miami Herald June 16 2010 it's clear that Mr. McGillis is notable Concert Promoter, Record Label Executive and Gay Rights Political Activist. Please do not use Wikipedia as a playground to voice opposition to political candidates who oppose your views or whom you do not like, do that at the polls. This nomination appears to have been sparked by a Alex Sink supporter as it comes immediately after the Miami Herald article came out and this is improper. A simple Google search of Darrin McGillis shows he is more notable than what wikipedia requires and this nomination seems to be just a political move by those who do not like Mr. McGillis stand and views on Gay Marriage and Gay Rights--Dymo400 (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was asked to come back and re-look at the article based on new sources that have been found. Based on the above post, there are exactly two usuable sources listed - the Miami Herald article and the South Florida Gay article. The Herald states in the article that you've probably never heard of him - hardly a ringing endorsement for notability. None of the rest have anything to do with McGillis, they are about Menudo. Additionally, based on the above sources, additional information would have to be added to the article. This would include the large number of lawsuits, the felony arrest for fraud, accusations of sexual harassment made by a Menudo member, accusations of violence, etc. I don't have a problem with working that up for y'all, but is that what you really want? You might want to read up on the WP:BLP policy - negative information is included if it is properly sourced, and one cannot use Wikipedia for self-promotion. You might be better off if the article is deleted. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my above comment, the Miami Herald source noted above stated:

"According to a Miami Herald story during the 2008 campaign: He was arrested on organized fraud charges in 1999 and had the charges dismissed as part of a plea deal that required him to pay restitution of more than $22,000. He has been sued twice by acquaintances who accused him of repeat violence, cases he claims were motivated by money. He has sued eight different people and organizations in Miami-Dade, while a member of Menudo sued him claiming sexual harassment in Puerto Rico but later retracted the claim. McGillis also has been sanctioned by the Third District Court of Appeal for filing frivolous and repetitive briefs." [1]

Any of that material can be added to the article, because a reliable source has published it already. I'll ask again, do you really want to keep the article? Because if it is kept, it has to be balanced, with both the good and the bad. If I were intending to just denigrate him, I would have just added the material to the article and sourced it - and it would have been kept in the article. I am trying to get you to think of what is best for him - does he really want a Wikipedia article with everything that is significant (bad and good) out there permanently? Finally, it is not proper to remove other's comments from an AfD discussion. GregJackP (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got to say that leaving that comment even with the quote "... but later retracted the claim." is a shame on your part. I have asked for assistance with the dispute as going after someone you do not know with such malice is truly wrong. I hope you reconsider your actions.--Dymo400 (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of sources is of paramount importance in considering the essential question of notability, and particularly in a biography, which is what this discussion should be about. But this discussion should be about the basics rather than the details, and editors should focus on the general notability of the subject, ad I have no view on that. Rodhull andemu 03:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under that view the entire Blog should be quoted "Ex-Menudo promoter rips Sink for opposing gay marriage: Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, the leading Democratic contender for governor, recently told The St. Petersburg Times: "I don't support gay marriage. I think that is entirely a religious decision that individuals can make. I do support civil unions." That statement led Darrin McGillis, who is among about two dozen gubernatorial candidates you've probably never heard of, to label Sink a "bigot" in a press release. "Ask yourself - Is using religious teachings to deny equal rights to gay people any less wrong than using religious teachings to discriminate against people of color or against people of different cultures wanting to marry?" he asked. Who is this guy?" --Dymo400 (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dymo400: the blog you refer to is a not a personal blog but a newspaper blog maintained by the journalistic staff of Miami Herald, see its description at[2]. The difference is clearly explained in WP:NEWSBLOG: ""Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs; these are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Thus the blog post in question actually satisfies the WP:V requirements. Nsk92 (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the case I just do not like watching anyone who is clueless that this discussion is taking place with no way of defending themselfs, I mean read the quote it's not from his opposition it is from the reporter who appears to have had a bias just by the fact of stating someone says he did something but later said he lied. C'mon repeating such disgusting comments is unfair to any human being. Had he not been a controversial candidate for Governor would we even be having this conversation "NO". I would never do this to anyone and I always think others are like me, but I guess I am wrong- FYI did you see this McGillis Personal Tragedy.--Dymo400 (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls far short of passing WP:POLITICIAN. GoogleNews results are fairly slight[3]. Plus significant potential BLP issues. Nsk92 (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is not the actual subject of any non-trivial coverage. Remember, notability is not inherited by one subject from another. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED, which specifically states, "Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited 'up', from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable." — Satori Son 04:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Satori Son. Being around notable people doesn't make one notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think these links tell a different story? - *Keep - notable concert promoter, owner of notable record company and notable political activist, plenty of news sources can be found, see, MTV, Yahoo Music, ITUNES, Billboard Magazine, Countless other news clips on his record label see, News Clips, His concert tours included James Brown, Rapper Producer Dr. Dre, Menudo, Expose, The Jets and many others, see, Concert Tours, he has also embargoed a Menudo concert in San Juan Puerto Rico San Juan Star Newspaper, in Politics he received over 39,000 votes in the 2008 Clerk of the Circuit Court Race in Miami Florida, he sued the Elections Department when they placed his name incorrectly on the ballot see, Lawsuit, he was the only candidate to take a stand for Gay Marriage in the Florida Governors race and said so in the South Florida Gay Newspaper, and recently in the Miami Herald called out Alex Sink the lead candidate for Governor for being against Gay Marriage on religios grounds Miami Herald June 16 2010 it's clear that Mr. McGillis is notable Concert Promoter, Record Label Executive and Gay Rights Political Activist. Please do not use Wikipedia as a playground to voice opposition to political candidates who oppose your views or whom you do not like, do that at the polls. This nomination appears to have been sparked by a Alex Sink supporter as it comes immediately after the Miami Herald article came out and this is improper. A simple Google search of Darrin McGillis shows he is more notable than what wikipedia requires and this nomination seems to be just a political move by those who do not like Mr. McGillis stand and views on Gay Marriage and Gay Rights.--Dymo400 (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Article can use more expansion, especially covering his political campaigns and his business ventures. Make it sound less like a commercial/political ad and more like a well-researched Wikipedia entry.--XLR8TION (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should have disclosed that you have been canvassed by Dymo400 to participate in this AfD[4]. Nsk92 (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Dymo400 has been engaged in canvassing in relation to this AfD: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. Future participants in this AfD: when !voting, please disclose if you have been canvassed by anyone to comment here. Nsk92 (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Because I was not the sole creator of the Darrin McGillis page I felt that those who participated in the final creation of the page should be notified of the Afd why I was the only one notified I have no clue. I simply provided the following message identical on each alerting them of the Afd and nothing else: "Way back when we both created the Darrin McGillis page and now due to politics the page is on its way to being deleted. Why dont you chime in if you have a minute. Thanks" I wish we could get away from this fifth grader back and forth and want appears to be mean conduct towards my person I feel like a punching bag and I am not. To those who voted Keep I agree with you.--Dymo400 (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your messages expressly violated WP:CANVASSING which states: "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages". Leaving a message that "now due to politics the page is on its way to being deleted" is clearly indicative of your opinion that you think the article should be kept and, moreover, suggests bad faith motives by those advocating deletion. Regarding "why I was the only one notified I have no clue": Read the instructions at WP:AFD. The customary practice is for the AfD nominator to notify the person who created the original version of the article (in this case you). Nsk92 (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not know why you are being so abrasive towards me in your tone. I have been nothing but courtesous towards you in all my writings, please disclose if you have any bias towards the subject of this Afd and his views on Gay Marriage or any. The tone you have expressed concerns me greatly. I hope you have a great week.--Dymo400 (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, please. I have not been abrasive to you, but I did feel the need to point out an obvious violation of WP:CANVASSING on your part. You have also engaged in repeated WP:NPA and WP:AGF violations by implying that the proponents of deletion are motivated by personal bias or political considerations or by some sort of connection with the campaign of the subject's political opponents. It was pointed out to you at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard that such accusations are inappropriate and without basis. The AfD nominator and the other delete !voters in this AfD have long and varied editing histories totally unrelated to the AfD's subject. On the other hand, a review of your contrib record shows that a large proportion (possibly the majority) of your contributions have been related to this article. Speaking about disclosures, if you have any connection to the subject's political campaign, you must disclose it here, per WP:COI. Nsk92 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following trend appears on GregJackP (Talk) page and should placed here for review as it points to a interesting view point on the Afd subject:

":I was going to post on the AfD, but this is probably better. First, for the sorts of claims that your describing, I'd be hard pressed to see a blog - even a newspaper's one - being sufficiently reliable to be used to support the claims of fraud and violence that you point to. Strong claims need strong sources. More importantly, though, I'm uncomfortable with the argument that you're making in the AfD that if the article is kept strongly negative material will need to be added. That's not a given, and it has a rather nasty appearance in terms of the debate. With respect, I think it might be better to stay clear of that sort of argument, and just focus on whether or not the subject is notable. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is germane and he is a public figure, it should be included. I have a problem with Wikipedia being used strictly for promotional purposed, paint the article rosy and bright, and sweeping negative information under the rug. It needs to be balanced - but the blog also stated that it was reported in the print newspaper, and I would probably try to find that ref and use it instead. I agree that refs on negative material be impeccable, and that we don't want to go to far the other way either. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if those sources exist, then he is likely to be notable. If they don't, they won't be included. Either way it shouldn't really help in an AfD - it feels wrong, as the point is to make NPOV articles, so arguing that negative material will be added comes across in the wrong light as it is both largely redundant and potentially threatening, and at best it points to a keep vote. I gather he's pulled out of the race, though, so this is likely to be a non-issue in the end. - Bilby (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

End of trend on GregJackP (Talk) page --Dymo400 (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to the sparsity of third-party reliable sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 14:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIo. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Almost no coverage of this individual, fails WP:Politician and general WP:BIO. Likely written by someone with a WP:COI as a promotional piece. Toddst1 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, music label notability claims are WP:ONEEVENT and covered at Menudo (band), political aspects are a marginal fail of WP:CRYSTAL at this time. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not enough coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Quantpole (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. In fact, the only current article I could find mentioning him on Google News indicates he has declined to run for Governor. AniMate 14:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:MUSICBIO. What coverage exists in independent reliable sources is not significant. I would be OK with a redirect to Menudo (band), but there still isn't a vast amount to say about him there. Location (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not yet notable. If he wins an election, sure, but as is this could easily become a BLP problem due to negative material which is available. Yworo (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not that many voices out there for Gay rights and it is a shame that someone who is for equal rights of all people is getting his name smeared. I hope you all read this article South Florida Gay Newspaper --Dymo400 (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I too have been contacted by Dymo400 and have just added a reliably sourced bit about McGillis' withdrawal from the elections for Governor. That said, I think the article can by improved but is currently quite weak. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having run through the sources he fails the bar, however if he wins then re-create without prejudice. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. What we have at the moment in an unsourced section about a record label and a failed political campaign, with only two reliable sources covering the guy. That's just not enough for WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Recreation if he becomes notable in the future would not be a problem. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 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) 03:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spade Kitty Records

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

This minor record label has lots of what appear to be bluelinks, but turn out to point to unrelated articles, disambig pages or are just plain name-dropping. As far as I can tell, only two bands signed to this label have articles, and they are of questionable notability. In any case, WP:MUSIC is silent on labels, so this article should be deleted by the standards of WP:CORP. I would have just prod-tagged it, but want to make sure the community agrees. Speciate (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable company - fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Any claim to notability seems to be be one of inherited. Codf1977 (talk) 10:43, 19 June 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) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Bestagno

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

No evidence of notability, and no reliable third-party sources. Deskford (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing in the usual places and his article makes no claims to notability unless web-master of http://www.autoripersanremo.com/ is something (which I doubt since it is certainly not the official site for Festival della canzone italiana (if my Italian is any good) even if the article seems to imply that) --Jubilee ♫clipman 01:47, 20 June 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 the fact that the word "funk-punk" has been used in one or two sources is not sufficient evidence to create an encyclopedic article on it. It is a close call but appears to boil down to one source. There does not appear to be a good policy based argument to keep. This article fails notability criteria. Polargeo (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punk funk

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

Made up sub genre, according to this article this genre somehow started 2 years before punk rock started. Ridernyc (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesnt even have any references STAT- Verse 02:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be a speedy. Wiki libs (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There are multiple reliable sources that talk about this style. See these books: 101 albums that changed popular music, Funk Guitar and Bass: Know the Players, Play the Music, etc. RG (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~That second reference doesn't appear to contain the word "punk"~~. see below Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the second reference is "Funk Guitar and Bass", that appears to contain the word "punk" ten times and "punk-funk" at least once. Mandsford 14:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I was being exceptionally dumb there - I blindly searched the web page without realising it was referring to a book that covers the subject. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. But these sources should be worked into the article, not just here. Tezero (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 17 June 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) 00:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep- there seems to be enough sources out there to support an article. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:19, 24 June 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 Guitarist#Notable guitarists. T. Canens (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitarists considered the greatest

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

Cruft list is a near-to-full duplication of a section already found in the Guitarist article. Misrepresentation of the list content in the title as it might be List of guitarists who have been included in print media top ten lists. Also note that the inclusion of the Rolling Stone section duplicated content from an article about the magazine issue which has been previously AfD'd from Wikipedia due to a copyvio issue over re-printing the contents of the Rolling Stone list. Wiki libs (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guitarist#Notable guitarists. --King Öomie 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore to this version [11] that was kept by consensus before. After the original keep, we've had two people who took it upon themselves to make a redirect to Guitarist, and another one who decided to "update" it [12] by trying to make it look identical to the section of Guitarist. I see no reason for doing that. Mandsford 19:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The key difference between the two is the longer table, which really isn't necessary. Why should that list be given priority above the many similar lists (and for the record, I think the Rolling Stone one should be trimmed too). -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Guitarists. I don't think there can be enough content to support a page. Once you ignore thbe lists, there isn't much, and I see no reason why that information can't be placed elsewhere. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no merge. The whole section of Guitarist#Notable guitarists was copied from this list into the article Guitarist by User:Dr. Blofeld [13] after he voted for deleting in the last nomination [14]. Therefore, it can not be considered a near-to-full duplication of a section already found in the Guitarist article (and it also violates Wikipedia's old copyright policy because Dr. Blofeld didn't mention the original author(s) when merging contents into the article Guitarist). Moreover, this article is well sourced, well written, similar to List of films considered the worst. Lastly, it would be a good example of a NPOV inherently subjective list of the article Guitar or Guitarist.--AM ^(talk) 04:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.

Redirect/Merge' - to Guitarist#Notable guitarists as per Kingoomieiii. Codf1977 (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me that where Kingoomieiii's comment is. I see only a empty vote with no specific reason.--AM ^(talk) 01:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have content forked from one article to another without proper attributation but if the material is already sitting comfortably in another article that had a wider context I see no point in retaining this so I support the redirect as this will address any attribution issues as well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea to have an article listing the Rolling Stones 100 Greatest Guitarists, or other notable listing, or an article with multiple lists. However, this article doesn't seem to be going in that direction, or have any direction for that matter. The Original Research nature of the article name is also problematic. Thus, Delete with no prejudice towards recreation with a proper name and proper focus. --Pink Bull 01:36, 25 June 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) 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Zamani

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

Subject is a videographer. Does not obviously meet WP:ARTIST.

The artist's website looks like an ad for video services; his portfolio includes commercials, web design, wedding photography, and some music videos. The music videos seem somewhat like art to me, but overall I doubt whether he is presenting his own work as creative innovation and in any case I cannot find any third-party reviews of him as an artist.

He might be notable as a primary promoter of Persian rap music, but I am unable to reference that he is either promoting himself as such or more importantly that any RS has suggested as much.

There are a list of artists on this page whose videos he has produced. Some do rap; I am guessing that all are Persian. Actually all the videos are polished and the artists are good; I nominated all of them for deletion, though, because I cannot find any evidence that any of them meet WP:BAND. Blue Rasberry 02:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason why to delete this interesting article. Rirunmot 00:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 16 June 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) 00:04, 22 June 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) 00:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. But I have to say that some of those guys are very popular in Iran.Farhikht (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesnt stablish notability. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 13:38, 29 June 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sufferer & the Witness Tour

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

The article's pretty much a list. There's some prose at the top that might do good in the article for the band, Rise Against, so if the consensus is to delete this article, someone should save the prose at the top and work it into the Rise against. Overall, however, this article fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 15:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well if it fails this then it sould probably be deleted, but rise against toured with so many other charting and notable bands, and theyre notable themselves. keep. draynah (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:35, 15 June 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, 22 June 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. WP:NPASR T. Canens (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bop Cassettes

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

Record label, who may have had some notable clients, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Un ref'ed for over 5 years. Codf1977 (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I remember reading about Bop in music mags back in the late 80s. This coverage exists, it just needs someone to dig it out of the archives. The label had several releases in the upper reaches of the UK Independent Chart. The label was discussed in Derek Wynne's book The Culture industry: the arts in urban regeneration and also in Steve Redhead's The end of the century party: youth and pop towards 2000. Releases also included the (fairly classic) Manchester North of England compilation. I believe the Scam label was also a subsidiary of Bop - releases included Dub Sex, Social Kaos. An important label from a key era in the Manchester music scene.--Michig (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added one source.--Pink Bull 02:25, 22 June 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. –MuZemike 01:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Records

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

Record label, who may have some notable clients, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Codf1977 (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significance is not a question. Wandering Courier (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The artists are notable, but the record label isn't. Joe Chill (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, until notability is established using multiple 3rd party sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lengthy and significant roster of artists; important in its genre as such. Meets WP:MUSIC's definition of "one of the more important indie labels". Chubbles (talk) 07:14, 14 June 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) 00:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - as per above. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after looking at another separate AfD that I was commenting in, I am changing to keep. Now that I look closer, I see that the label does in fact have notable artists associated with it. And I do not believe WP:INHERITED is even remotely appropriate here, because, as I said in the other AfD, being signed on a record label is much different than the type of "association" that is mentioned in WP:INHERITED. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 23:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:INHERITED is exactly right here - I am not saying that having notable artists associated with it does not bring the company notability, it might, but that has to be demonstrated by significant coverage of it's own just having notable artists associated and saying that it is notable as a result is a case of WP:INHERITED. With out the significant coverage of it's own this company fails WP:CORP.Codf1977 (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some above argued against deletion... Chubbles (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable company - Seems to be part of a mass nomination of record labels which the nominator seems to have something against.

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

Music Proposed deletions

[1] ttp://books.google.com/books?id=P1qyHCmpT7EC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=norm+burley&source=bl&ots=UdI17QHlgD&sig=yeQwpAE7E-097_5epwiFgnjRDJc&hl=en&ei=NtcbTNPXJIX6NY7yhOgM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=norm burley&f=false

[2] ttp://books.google.com/books?id=P1qyHCmpT7EC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=norm+burley&source=bl&ots=UdI17QHlgD&sig=yeQwpAE7E-097_5epwiFgnjRDJc&hl=en&ei=NtcbTNPXJIX6NY7yhOgM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=norm burley&f=false

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spade Kitty Records}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danilo Bestagno}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Green (PR manager)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punk funk}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Repossession Records (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guitarists considered the greatest (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Zamani}}