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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:28, 26 June 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ditchburn

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

Contested BLP prod. Singer, no real assertion of notability. The reference added is from a local newspaper which itself does not seem to meet our notability guidelines or our reliable sources guidelines. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 July 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, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Those external links (sort of references) aren't enough to establish notability. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 8 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. In the absence of reliable sources covering the subject in detail the consensus is to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ja-Bar

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

An artist whose first album is not actually out yet, references are about other artists but namecheck this one in passing. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his single is currently charting passes WP:BAND. STAT -Verse 03:28, 25 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, 1 July 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) 00:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ – Has some degree of notability for the single "Daze" which has charted, and noted in one newspaper source which I added to the article just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't looked at the other two references when I added the one I found. The comment below is correct—the references do not mention him at all; presumably the sources had been accidentally copied from the Soulja Boy Tell 'Em article. Struck my "keep" recommendation. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ja-Bar's biography is almost entirely unsourced as two of three references provided do not even mention him at all. Only claim for notability seems to be his song "Daze", but I can't see any charts that actually show its peak. Interestingly, there have been articles of songs with higher peak than Daze's peak, but have been deleted and/or redirected. Karppinen (talk) 12:39, 10 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. airplay doesn't an article make so the delete side has better policy based arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vayden

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

Reason

Fails WP:BAND. I saw this article while on Page Patrol and its citations are as per my observation on its talkpage - not WP:RS and WP:V. It was WP:CSD'ed but on the talkpage, an editor stated this was "improvement over previous deletions" and that he would not oppose it at this AfD. If this improvement, it needs salt to go along with its failure to establish notability for a band. It uses blogs and what appears to be self-posted websites or ones without editorial oversight. --moreno oso (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - [1] and [2] represent coverage in local Phoenix media. Everything else I could find that would be from a reliable source is just concert listings. If there is some more coverage, then this would fall over to a keep for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [3] and [4] represent national add placements on fifteen different major radio stations, which should be considered alongside Whpq's previous links to local Phoenix media coverage. I am the article's original author, and also dispute moreno oso's above misquotations of my words. I had said I would not oppose this article's deletion if I was unable to provide proper citations within one week, and since I have done so, I now strongly oppose this article's deletion. MetalMilitiaESP (talk) 09:28, 29 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) 00:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- I was on the fence on whether or not it should actually kept, but since a source has been added confirming the band being on XM, I'm convinced. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as per MetalMilitiaESP. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 22:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial relaible independent sources. Proof of airplay is not proof of significance, many insignificant bands get some airplay. Notability is about being the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources, and I'm not seeing that. That's probably why it's been deleted four times already. MetalMilitiaESP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA who edited the article before its deletion and then recreated and is responsible for most of its content, including removing speedy tags. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should clarify things here. For one- I was the one who removed the speedy tag on this article, not the article creator (although they had placed the hangon tag). For another, being played on a major outlet, like XM, is an indicator of notability per WP:BAND criteria 11- "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. ". And lastly, I should point out that even though this had been speedy deleted before, this particular incarnation of the article was allowed to be re-created with permission from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 16 (which is honestly why I contested the speedy in the first place- they made an effort to follow the rules, and were told that their effort was sufficient to allow an article, and I felt that rewarding that with a speedy deletion was a bit of a WP:BITE when the creator seemed to be acting in good faith). Umbralcorax (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the only sources for content provided so far are local newspapers and blogs - nothing that shows any national or international importance. Also as already noted above, proof of airplay is not proof of notability: notability (see WP:N) means there is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Airplay suggests you'd be able to find some decent national sources - so where are they? Hm? WP:SPA posting WP:SPAM sets off alarm bells. The article fails WP:HOLE: nothing in the article differentiates Vayden from the million other bands who try to put up Wikipedia articles on themselves. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:27, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Brooks

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

Lacks proper sources to determine notability serialrage 10:09, 23 June 2010

Delete as article fails WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 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) 01:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focus 23

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND and has been marked as possibly not meeting the general notability for over a year. Aspects (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 30 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) 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. Thought not a BLP, I don't feel comfortable closing an AFD for a band article with poor sourcing as "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage about this musical "group" which is a single person with sometimes some collaborators. Nor can I find any coverage about the main "member" of the group. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 8 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silkski

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

This article seems to be about a relatively unknown record producer, who has produced music for a couple of artists. However, there isn't significant coverage of this musician from reliable sources. Discogs.com is not one. With hardly any notability, Silski fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Silkski Article:

This artist is not relatively unknown!!!!!!! He has been known for years and have contributed to the hip hop industry in many ways. He has done more than merely a few songs for a few artist. He has been on soundtracks, produced platnium records..such as bloods and crips albums, Ice T Return of the Real...and Beavis and Butt Head (Do America). This article has good sources on the page and is cited. I do not see why or what the purpose is for this article being deleted. Every statement of the albums this artist is on has a source to back the statement.Some things he is credited under his government name (Jerome Evans) and others are just his stage name (Silkski). If discogs is not a reliable source...I wonder is allmusic.com an reliable source? If it is not...then give me a couple of days and I will have a source, rather it is Ascap or Emi to back up the references. Everything about this artist on this article is true...and I attend to do my best to fix any problem that comes along that will help this article stay up.L. E. Evans 09:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)--L. E. Evans 09:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondthadimepiece (talk • contribs)

According to WP:MUSIC "Good online sources for recordings are the Freedb search engine or the Allmusic search engine. To find ownership information on song texts copyrighted in the US, the ASCAP ACE Title Search, and BMI Repertoire Search".

Within the Silkski article I have sources from Allmusic, ASCAP, Billboard, ArtistDirect, EMI, cdUniverse, and copyrights. For the records that have gone beyond gold and platnium, such as the Bloods and Crips, and Beavis and Butthead; I have provided at least three sources for each record to prove that this artist/producer is well known. Please review the Silkski article so that it could be removed from the request of deletion. Also please note that Silkski's real name is Jerome Evans and most of his credits are under his official name. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondthadimepiece (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need reliable sources..here are a few

Copycat

(The Motion Picture Soundtrack)

http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,223658,00.html under credits you will see his stage name "Silkski"

copyrights for Techno Boy http://www.faqs.org/copyright/i-dont-speak-the-language-and-1920-other-titles-part-002-of/

Beavis and Butt-head Do America

(The Motion Picture Soundtrack)

http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,235635,00.html under credits you will see his name (Jerome Evans)

http://www.billboard.com/album/ice-t/vi-return-of-the-real/186476#/album/original-soundtrack/beavis-and-butt-head-do-america/191182 Jerome Evans (Silkski) is listed as a producer for this Soundtrack on Billboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.3.168 (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bangin' on Wax

http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,54052,00.html under credits you will see his name (Jerome Evans)

copyrights for C-sick http://www.faqs.org/copyright/a-catalog-of-performance-objectives-criterion-referenced-2/

Copyrights for K's up http://www.faqs.org/copyright/i-dont-speak-the-language-and-1920-other-titles-part-002-of/

75.94.3.168 (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VI: Return of the Real - Ice-T

http://www.billboard.com/album/ice-t/vi-return-of-the-real/186476#/album/ice-t/vi-return-of-the-real/186476

Silkski is listed as an producer for this album on Billboard.com

Bangin' on Wax, Vol. 2: The Saga Continues

http://www.billboard.com/album/ice-t/vi-return-of-the-real/186476#/album/blood-crips/bangin-on-wax-vol-2-the-saga-continues-collectors/570205

Silkski (Jerome Evans) is listed as an producer for this album on Billboard.com 75.94.3.168 (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock the Bells

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800181/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondthadimepiece (talk • contribs) 11:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updates and New Sources Added to Silkski Article

I have updated and added reliable sources to the article Silkski, which proves that this article is within WP:MUSIC standards.

L. E. Evans 12:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondthadimepiece (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 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) 02:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has reliable sources and is within WP:MUSIC standards. The article shows notability from: Allmusic, ASCAP, Billboard, ArtistDirect, and EMI; which clearly passes WP:MUSIC standards. L. E. Evans (talk) 04:30, 2 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerilyn Sawyer

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

Seems to have been created by the person which is a WP:COI if that is the case, the article has no cited sources and I'm really not seeing any notability per WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Bidgee (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete: References are a mess, but if "Jerilyn was nominated for the 47th Annual Grammy Awards" is true, then she may satisfy WP:MUSICBIO #8 - "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award". What we need is a source that confirms it and describes the nature of the award she was nominated for. (Nothing else in the article seems sufficiently notable, and none of the sources given seems to convey sufficient notability - "sang the national anthem", mentions in passing, etc) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to 'Delete' after failing to find any evidence of Grammy nomination - the list found by Dylanfromthenorth, below, seems fairly conclusive (but I'll change back if anyone can actually find it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V - I can't independently verify the claims of notability (Grammy award etc.). Claritas § 17:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've been searching and I couldn't verify it either - couldn't find anything on the Grammy site (but it is a very poor site). I've asked the original author if they have a reference, or at least some details of the category. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was writing a paper on a currently living singer for my college course at Berklee College of Music, and was lucky to come across this page. Jerilyn Sawyer's music may not be mainstream, but it is something that we have reviewed and studied in the past few years. I found this information,along with other sources, to be very helpful in creating my term paper. Please do not delete this page, because you will turn away many students who are looking for her information, whom will simply look elsewhere. I find this page very informative and very relevant. I can personally verify that she was nominated for a Grammy award, and will personally search for a link to verify that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejegirl12 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to an admin as a possible sockpuppet of page creator. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin will note the similarity of Jejegirl12 (talk · contribs) and Jerilyn18 (talk · contribs). Acroterion _(talk) 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We both had used this article for a class term paper a few months back. That has drawn me to comment.

Could you please explain why I am being sited for sockpuppeting? I am not new to the use of wikipedia, but am a new log in member. I simply stated my opinion in the deletion matter, and am questioning why my opinion id being defaulted into the term "sockpuppeting." My opinion should be taken seriosuly like everyone elses, not categorized in a way to brush it off :( The other user that you claim is also me is a student at the same University as me. She had posted what she was editing for articles on facebook, and when I viewed them saw deletion pages, in which i decided to comment. We are not the same person by any means. Cant people have similar opinions????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejegirl12 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all your edits to Wikipedia so far have been to pages related to Jerilyn Sawyer or to pages related to Nationwide Diesel Technologies, a company owned by Jerilyn Sawyer's father. When an editor appears to be editing in only a particularly narrow area of topics, especially when they have admitted that they are a classmate of the person they are writing about, the editor may appear to be a single-purpose account. The best way to get past this is to make some constructive edits to Wikipedia pages that have nothing to do with your friends and family or their friends and family. (By the way, you said you "both" used this article for a term paper. Who is the other person?) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, but your personal verification doesn't count. Independent sources are required. Working with notable people doesn't confer notability of itself. Performing in a parade is not notable. Grammy nominated? I can find nothing to back this up. A search for '"Jerilyn Sawyer" grammy 47th' gives 9 hits. Two are here, and the rest either don't seem to mention her, or to be bloggish stuff, or to mirror Wikipedia articles. That is about the only real claim to notability I can see in the article, and proper reliable independent evedence is needed before we can accept that claim. I've looked at grammy.com, and can't see any listing of previous nominations there. Doesn't mean it isn't there, though, or it may well be found somewhere else. Up to you to produce it.... Good luck with the career, anyway. If this goes, get some references sorted out and applied to the appropriate statements, and try again. (If not sure how to do, ask for help. Most of us regulars will be willing to help or point in the right direction.) Peridon (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to this list of nominees Jerilyn Sawyer wasn't one of them. I can't see any other signs of notability as per WP:MUSICBIO, so unless some are produced this article should be deleted. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Jerilyn was submitted for the Grammy award rather than nominated. "Record companies and individuals may submit recordings to be nominated." (quoted from Grammy Award. I would think that this might be a mistake in terminology. There is a link to the grammy.com list on the link above, but it won't work for me. Anyone else have a go? May need to contact the webmaster. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get a 404 error from the link too - it looks like it was a txt file that isn't there any more. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of evidence that the subject was actually nominated for a Grammy, the subject appears not to qualify under any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. (A musician doesn't have to have a Grammy nomination to be notable, but none of the other things Sawyer is listed as doing seem to qualify her as notable.) However, if it turns out that she personally was nominated for a Grammy (as opposed to, say, "she was one of 20 singers providing backup vocals on one track of an album that was nominated for a Grammy"), I would be likely to change my recommendation to "keep". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. No grammy, no article. Vartanza (talk) 03:02, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Fabi

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

Procedural nomination, 3 users have Prodded, I think might meet WP:N. As I've already removed a PROD once, I figured I'd sent it off to AfD for a larger discussion. I'm neutral. Hobit (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as one of the prodders. Some changes have been made since then, but unless any inline citations can be provided to back up claims, then obvious delete. I'd change my mind with some WP:RS. — Timneu22 · talk 15:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just point out that a lack of in-line citations isn't a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's the lack of inline citations that could prove notability. I don't see any. — Timneu22 · talk 16:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just being clear that in-line or not, in the article or not, is not a reason to delete. See WP:DEL. If the sources don't exist that's a different story. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also because the person that the article is about created. No inline citations. Mr. R00t ^Talk 16:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails, in order, WP:COMPOSER, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. The Daytime Emmy nomination comes closest, but no cigar. (Verifiable at [5] [6] [7]; the Emmy Awards' official website doesn't seem to list past nominees or even winners that I could find.) —Korath (Talk) 17:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LAzee Luu

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

Non-notable rapper, fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:ENTERTAINER. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Stockdale

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

Long term unreferenced BLP. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 14:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - two-time Daytime Emmy winner. Please read WP:BEFORE. Now it needs rescue. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reviewing notability standards at WP:ARTIST:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. N No evidence of this.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. N No evidence of this.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. N No evidence that any of this individual's work has been the subject of a book, film, or multiple periodical articles.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. N The only arguable one is c, and only if you consider Daytime Emmy's as "significant critical attention". Personally, I do not.
See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics. N This individual is not an academic.

Additionally, the fact that the article is terribly written, full of unnecessary redlinks, and almost completely unreferenced isn't helping its case. SnottyWong ^confess 22:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won notable awards, and his music is heard in many notable television shows. Dream Focus 04:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Bearian.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two time award winner... can only be verified in a database... keep and discuss merge if the rest of the article can't be verified... Arskwad (talk) 15:05, 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 no consensus. –MuZemike 01:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megan and Liz

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

Non-notable music duo lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO adn WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a thread about this duo at the WP:MUSIC talk page. The gist being: times are changing fast. WP:MUSIC talks, for instance, about albums on the charts. In 2005 that made sense; today it means little or nothing, since no one buys albums. Well, old people do, consequently people like Susan Boyle et al top the charts (but with sales an order of magnitude lower than in 2000), even though they are not really hot acts. I'm not saying this duo is notable, but it's an interesting question. WP:MUSIC does not even mention YouTube views, yet don't these count for something? This pair claims 1.2 million for one of their songs. I don't even know if that's a comparatively large number or not. Herostratus (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - albums DO still exist, just not in the format that Herostratus suggested above (ie, vinyl). Since anyone can post a YT video, I feel that this makes YT an unreliable source - for MOST things. When I say MOST, I know that there is a List_of_YouTube_personalities who have become famous/imfamous with their YT postings, but I do not believe that in cases like this that it can be used to establish notability. Now, one appearance on Oprah and 1 released album to date doesn't quite satisfy the notability requirements in my book. I !voted "weak" due to the Oprah appearance. Without that, this would be a slam-dunk speedy delete. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:39, 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, Courcelles (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the record, paid downloads count toward the music charts (at least the Billboard charts). For example, Eminem's album Recovery sold 741,000 copies its first week, of which 255,000 were downloads. [8] If YouTube views eventually become a meaningful way of judging a music artist's popularity, I suspect that Billboard will develop a chart to monitor that, but until then, I prefer to use the traditional charts (which have been updated to include digital sales). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Megan and Liz are still rising in their fame and are quickly adding to their fan base. Their achievements will have more significance as they make more television appearances and release new songs, which is happening fast. The article itself needs more details but I think it shouldn't be deleted. The appearance on Oprah was only the beginning. --JRsingersongwriter (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, somebody's gotta vote one way another; it's already been relisted once. I !vote Keep based on WP:JUST_SO_FRIGGIN_CUTE_YOU_COULD_PUKE. Oh wait. I mean, based on their notability. They don't qualify under WP:MUSIC, but they have fan sites all over the world, so I'll go in for a little jury nullification here. My take -- it's kind of a guess -- is that they have tons of fans and that however that's manifested or not manifested, it makes it worthwhile to have an article about them. Herostratus (talk) 07:40, 6 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ytcracker

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

As mentioned in the previous 3 AfD's this article is clear self promotion(however, impressive) and continues to violate WP:Music as well as Neutral Point Of View. The substantial edits by "ytcracker" himself and his extreme involvement of every edit made support this. The discussion for this article also clearly shows the article was created by "ytcracker" himself. I don't feel the page is noteworthy for any reason other than to support a "nerdcore" career(which is certainly not noteworthy in any way, to say the least.)

Please see the previous nominations filled with "ytcracker" fighting for his article:

May 2009 - 3rd Nomination

August 2006 - 2nd Nomination

August 2005 - 1st Nomination

In addition, "nerdcore" is self created term which appears to have been created by "ytcracker" for the purpose of self promotion. His contributions on the "nerdcore" article support this. "i'm just a godfather get over it. i'm glad it's "apparant" arguing with me is futile." he states. Further, the "Nerdcore" article is questionable as well as it is clearly not a genre of music that is embraced by the public. The "nerdcore" article even states that is not embraced by many(as well as mentioning it has received absolutely no recognition from the RIAA). In short, the "ytcracker" article is promotion for not only Bryce Case but "nerdcore" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaddavis (talk • contribs) 06:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Chaddavis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This article has survived AfD three previous times. Setting that aside I went through the references provided. Of the 13 used for footnotes, seven were for hacking, one was an IMDb page crediting his appearance in two documentaries (on nerdcore), one was a blog (about nercore), and one was for a magazine called XLR8R. Let's disregard those as unimportant to the discussuion. That leaves us with an article in Newsweek, one in Wired, and one in the Boston Globe; all reputable publications. In the articles, he is among the subjects focused on when discussing the genre of music. Additionally, according to Wired magazine, the term "nerdcore" was coined by "MC Frontalot", not ytcracker. While I think "ytcracker" should refrain from editing his own article, I think the subject meets WP:BAND. Movementarian (Talk) 08:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the independent coverage of this artist by multiple documentaries, not to mention multiple news outlets is more than sufficient enough to surpass the WP:N bar. If the article is not written in a neutral tone that is an editorial issue. Go troll somewhere else, plz. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:N, possibly for his music, certainly for the cracking of public websites. Not a snowball's chance in hell this doesn't pass. The fact that it might be used for self-promotion is irrelevant for the purposes of notability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it is inappropriate that ytcracker is himself editing the article, and he should possibly be banned from doing so, the content is well documented, notable, and mostly written in an encyclopedic tone. Also I feel that nerdcore is an actual genre, regardless of what the RIAA says. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 05:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BIO, passes WP:N (I don't even see how this could be objectively contested, in all honesty - international print magazines and newspapers, multiple occasions!), and also passes WP:BAND. I echo others in agreeing that it is inappropriate that ytcracker is himself editing the article, but this has no bearing on whether it meets the three criteria for inclusion I cited. Objectively considering the policy articles, it seems hardly worthwhile to be having this debate about the merits of the writeup, which meets and exceeds each of them. Datavortex (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: come smoke some weed with me and we can edit my article together. Ytcracker (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's not a lot to be said that hasn't been said already, even discounting the potentially unreliable sources, Newsweek, Wired and the like make this an article on a demonstrably notable subject matter. And in case you're wondering about the vandal edits from this IP, this is a Swiss university IP. 62.2.134.218 (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable through references to appearances in major publications. Possible NPOV issues should be resolved through editing, not deletion. Please see relevant sections of WP:DEL, such as "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." and "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." -Fadookie ^Talk 11:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Lock - I have two primary concerns for this nomination. This request for deletion seems a little biased or even personal, going so far as claiming that an established genre of music (nerdcore) that has existed for over 10 years now both in USA and abroad (see the various noteworthy newspaper, magazine, and television articles/interviews.) is not relevant. There is an impressive following, with Nerdapalooza *nerdcore music festival* pushing quad-digit numbers yearly, and tours such as mc chris' current one (which ytcracker is in no less) selling out every show (check the numbers). My secondary concern is the mention of ytcracker editing his own wiki. It seems to either be someone confusing him for user rmk or claiming that repairing vandalism is a form of vandalism in itself. 4 nominations really? Once the article proved noteworthy the first times with the international tour, television, movie, written media, and mainstream successes it should be an open and shut case. chozo_ninpo (talk)09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Lock Why 4 nominations??? Like mentioned earlier....this request for deletion seems personal.--L. E. Evans 18:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondthadimepiece (talk • contribs)

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 Britain's Got Talent (series 4). Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrangement (band)

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

Band only known for one thing i.e. auditioning for Britain's Got Talent. Therefore WP:BLP1E should apply. Also, fails WP:BAND (including criteria 9). Anemone Projectors 01:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there are many pages dedicated to groups from Britain's Got Talent who have not made it to the final, and it is likely that this group will continue after the program, due to their various television and radio appearances since the Semi Final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjthanel (talk • contribs) 11:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and will typically be dismissed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Anemone Projectors 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says how they appeared on "this morning" and "bbc radio cambridgeshire". These events both took place after the groups semi final and therefore point to the fact that the group has had continued interest since the program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.163.107 (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.":

this is a relevant use of other similar articles exist as there are pages for acts in the exact same position as this band; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.163.107 (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Morning and BBC Radio Cambridgeshire aren't really good sources to ascertain notability; there are a lot of fluff pieces on both, I'd expect, about something like chickens that can moonwalk. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeh agreed, il go start a page for moon-walking chickens then :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjthanel (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with series four article. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britain's Got Talent, just another reality shpw contestant. this morning is on the same channel, cross promotion? (not independent). BBC Radio Cambridgeshire not national, 1 play only. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:58, 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. treat as prod Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arkitects

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

Music producers who don't meet WP:GNG or any specific guideline. An article on Shawn A Campbell is also nominated for deletion. Claritas § 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 23 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) 00:44, 30 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) 02:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn A Campbell

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

Unreferenced BLP which is essentially a resume. No sources can be found to establish the notability of this individual. Fails WP:BIO. The BLPPROD tag I initially put on this article was removed, because apparently the external links in this article count as "sources" for BLPPROD. SnottyWong ^prattle 19:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete' - doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, as a single Grammy nomination isn't considered enough. I'm surprised that this wasn't G11ed. I'm going to nominate The Arkitects for deletion as well, as I can't find any sign that they meet notability criteria either. Claritas §
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one article is not significant coverage. Not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 19:46, 1 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Magical Blue Orchestra

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

I do not think this band meets the criteria set by WP:BAND for notability of bands.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage, nothing here says notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:04, 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A&SG

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

Non-notable music group lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources that I can find, and no indication that they meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. If kept the article would need to be completely rewritten too. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Schwartz

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

Reason Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by the looks of it she had a long and valued career, and I'm sure she was a lovely person, but the article reads like an obit rather than an encyclopedia article. Also, it doesn't look like she'd meet either the WP:MUSIC, WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:40, 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Talk (band)

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

Fails: WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND
WP:BEFORE was considered and reviewed prior to this debate nomination. Since the CSD tag was summarily removed without article improvement or prior edits, it is more appropriate to bring this article to a AfD for full community consensus. Dubious edits to another article led me to this band. They are Sacramento based but yet have not received reliable press from any of the local major newspapers to include the Sacramento Bee. Had this band done half the accomplishments claimed like their Chicago and European tour, there should have been mention in local Chicago or Japanese press, of which there is none, and present in the article. I live in the Sacramento area, am a contributing WP California member and totally unfamiliar with this group. Checking other local sources I know online and private which reveal no verifiable knowledge of the group which is astonishing given their "accomplishments". The present citations to this article come from websites that are unregulated and where self-publishing is evident. --moreno oso (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I removed the speedy tag because it was inappropriate. Before this was even speedy-tagged the article already contained references from Rolling Stone and Spin magazine - not in-depth coverage but enough to make speedy-deletion inappropriate. WP:BEFORE involves looking for alternatives for deletion, and at least making some effort to find coverage, before bringing an article to AFD. Had you searched for sources you may have found, within the first few pages of Google results, coverage from Pitchfork Media, the BBC, The Guardian, Drowned in Sound, and again, Stereogum, BBC again, and Rock Sound ([9], [10]). See also Metacritic - reviews from Q Magazine, NME, Absolutepunk.com.--Michig (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Michig. Joe Chill (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Eek. That's a mountain of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I'm frankly not sure how the nominator comes to the conclusions they come to, and if WP:BEFORE was considered I'd recommend trying Google as part of your due diligence next time. I would suggest withdrawing the nomination -- I just randomly clicked on two of the sources Mich links (The Guardian, BBC) and either of them are enough to let this band plainly pass any notability concerns, let alone verifiability ones. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 23 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 both. T. Canens (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Censored

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

Looks at first like a well referenced article but when you look at what the references actually are it's clear that this is not the case. When you get rid of youtube, blogs, fanzines, primary, user contributed, gig listings, stores, press release, refs where censored isn't mentioned, all we are left with is a small amount of local interest coverage (Ilkeston Advisor [11], Derby Telegraph) [12]) and an interview were they take about themself hosted by the BBC [13]. Further search only finds local interest coverage in Derby Telegraph. Not what I call significant coverage. Closest thing to notability is national airplay (but there is no indication that it gets anywhere near rotation) and touring (which lacks the coverage needed). Only releases are 5 singles (mostly self released, the 5th is called their debut single) and there is no charting or significant awards. Nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page about a band member that is similarly referenced (a large part is just a compressed version of the censored article) and for whom there is no notability show outside the band:

Of the 60 references this article had this morning, nearly half were to random subjects' home pages, the band's music videos on YouTube, or Amazon / iTunes etc. links to digital downloads. I've had a go at removing unreliable sources and that has roughly halved already. Also note Template:Matt Henshaw, a navbox containing only one blue link (to the article under AfD here), which I've taken to TfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. both of them.Farhikht (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fail WP:BAND and WP:BIO respectively. Claritas § 17:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 23 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 per the lone reason for retention, accompanied by said article's improvement, which has not been rebutted. –MuZemike 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SubAudible Hum

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

fails WP:MUSIC. no signficant coverage [14]. LibStar (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment this should come out as a keep as j award nominated albums were featured albums and featured albums have tracks place on medium to high rotation. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 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) 00:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage except for a few sentence mention on a news website. Not enough to justify a page. mboverload @ 02:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've provided references for the article and it now satisfies wp:n. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:41, 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 keep. no arguments for deletion MINUS the nom JForget 00:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pacha Man

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

NN artist, only trivial coverage CTJF83 pride 05:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 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) 00:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 14:52, 28 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) 00:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 5 July 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) 00:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third relist rationale. I really don't like relisting articles for a third time but I found out that the AFD tag was improperly removed from the article by the article's creator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this Google News Archive search. Sources such as this, this, and this demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't read any of those, I can't verify if they are reliable sources. CTJF83 chat 03:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: by Cunard. Dewritech (talk) 14:17, 12 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 keep. inline citations inserted, snow support (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filipe Galvão

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

nn singer, nn songwriter, nn actor, and no third party sources in English. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks notable to me. There are a number of decent sources in Portuguese; English sources aren't necessary.Minnowtaur (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article includes as external links several articles directly about the subject from major newspapers such as O Dia and O Globo. The suggestion that the article should be deleted due to a lack of English language sources is ridiculous.--Michig (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources both listed in the article and in the Google News search results linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourcing was available in the external links section. I've converted them to inline citations to make it clearer that the article is sourced. I did this via machine transation to understand the article contents. If any editor here is even mildly proficient in Portuguese, a quick review to ensure I placed the sourcing correctly would be appreciated. -- Whpq (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep per meeting notability criteria.[15] With the greatest of respects to User:Jeff G. and his good faith nomination, lack of English sources is not a reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:56, 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. Unfortunately the sources given do not rise to the level of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." Promotional material, blogs, and personal web pages are obviously out. The situation may change in the future (for instance if/when the album comes out), but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unisonic (band)

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

It fails WP:BAND in all respects. No published music. All sources fail because they are from promotion companies, fan sites, and fan clubs. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 18:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per proposal. Etrigan (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge to Michael Kiske. See Talk:Unisonic (band). It would have been helpful if discussion could have taken place there before bringing this to AFD.--Michig (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No published music, minor record label and no charting in any singles chart. However I wish the band good luck so that one day they may be famous enough to have their own wikipedia page. IJA (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given that the band has not yet signed to a label, it's hardly surprising that they haven't had any 'published music', chart hits, etc. Given that the band includes the singer from Helloween, two members of Pink Cream 69 (who released 2 albums on Epic and 2 on Sony), and the former guitarist from Asia (band)/Gotthard/Krokus (band), and given that there are sources with which to verify this ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), could someone explain why we wouldn't at least want to merge the verifiable material to the Michael Kiske article?--Michig (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Crystal, how do you known they will get a record label? We can't predict the future. IJA (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just added links/references to the article, from "Michael Kiske's official website" and an interview with him as well. Is it a wikipedia rule that the band has to be signed to a label or to have an album out, in order for an article to be featured here? Mpaoxi (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are hardly third party reliable variable references IJA (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep Added further references ([21], [22], [23]) to the article.

IJA, can you please state what do you mean by 'They are hardly third party reliable variable references'? On the article, there are at least 6 different references on the band.

Jeff G, I just reviewed the WP:BAND and it clearly states that "A musician...may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". The article meets the following criteria: "1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable" - Michael Kiske and Dennis Ward have been featured in numerous musical albums, articles, etc. "4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" - UNISONIC performed several concerts in Germany and also held a show in Sweden Rock Festival. "6. 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" - Michael Kiske was Helloween's ex vocalist and he has worked with numerous artists, such as Gamma Ray, Avantasia and Masterplan. Kiske, Ward and Zafiriou were all memebers of the Place Vendome project, with which they released 2 albums.Mpaoxi (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mpaoxi's comments are interesting but hardly significant when taken in context to this band. Notability is not transferred and depends upon verifiable reliable press for the subject. Where is the press or citations for the concerts mentioned? If trivial mentions are made, that is not significant and does meet the stated criteria. Ideally, the band should be the subject of multiple reputable magazines like Rolling Stone where their name appears in the title of the article or where they are directly covered and receive substantial mention within the article. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - moreno oso, Official information on the mentioned concerts can be found here: [24], [25]and from a magazine [26]. Further general information on the band can be found here: [27] (Greek music magazine), [28] and [29]. I presume that when the band finds a record label, there will be more magazines issuing articles about their forthcoming albumMpaoxi (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BAND. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment @ Mpaoxi They are not third party references for example "www.Michael-keiske.de" is a band member's website and thus violates WP:SELFPUBLISH. Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for further details IJA (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article lists sources and the coverage appears to be substantial. However, I don't know if the sources are reliable.--Pink Bull 20:29, 27 June 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\ 08:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I personally see no serious reason to delete this article, except if the sources are not considered reliable. As mentioned earlier in the discussion, the article meets at least 2 criteria of the WP:BAND. In more detail: 1) "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" - UNISONIC performed in Sweden Rock Festival 2010 ([30], [31] and [32]). 2) "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" - Michael Kiske was Helloween's ex vocalist and he has worked with numerous artists, such as Gamma Ray, Avantasia and Masterplan. Kiske, Dennis Ward and Kostas Zafiriou were all memebers of the Place Vendome project, with which they released 2 albums. Ward and Zafiriou are also members of Pink Cream 69. Mpaoxi (talk) 09:50, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony DeNiro

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

I apologize if this seems like a cleanup-AfD, but I'm not an expert on the topic at all. At least my google-search gave me a barrage of sources that I cannot evaluate for WP:RS. Bottom-line is, this thing has been tagged as unreferenced (BLP) since 2008 and no-one seems to have cared. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm on the way to bed, but a quick search found lots of sources. It appears this article just needs some major cleanup, wikification, and work. Bhockey10 (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 23 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) 00:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can't find much information about this person, but when this article was up for speedy deletion a couple of years ago, I did find this article which I added as a reference to indicate that there is some substance to the article. The article may need to be cut down to limit the content to what can be reliably sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:59, 27 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) 00:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject clearly appears notable, but with no references to back up any of the claims made, such as "branding" hip hop and R&B stars and being a consultant to "award shows." Article is in terrible shape for Wikipedia and will need a monumental effort at cleanup to keep. Notability does not appear to be an issue, however there are no verifiable sources listed to prove such claims. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete ArticleThis is not a poorly-sourced article rather it is an article that lacks sourcing at all. The one reference supplied is weak at best and doesn't offer much in confirming any of the claims for the subject of this article. Looking at some of the information athletic information, I was able to confirm that some of the accomplishments listed in regards to the subject are untrue and am more than willing to post for reference. So if the authors of this article stand by these claims, they need to provide valid sources that back them up.Analyzerwiki 01 (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If no improvement takes place bringing the article up to Wiki standards. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[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) 04:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Club

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

DJ Club is an alter ego of Caleb Shomo, and this is a second article about him. Caleb Shomo was determined to be non-notable at AfD so this article should clearly follow the same path. However it's not a speedy candidate as recreation of deleted content because the articles existed in parallel before the AfD. It's possibly speedy deletable as housekeeping. Note that at some point an IP contested merge to Caleb Shomo (see the talk page) saying the two were distinct, but I dispute this: (1) it's just an alternate name for the same individual (DJ Club is not a band of which he is part), and (2) the subject of the article is Shomo.

Regardless of the other AfD, there is no indication that WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG are met.

If consensus is that notability is established, or such notability emerges, then arguably the Caleb Shomo article should be restored (and possibly merged). I42 (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. The guy's main band, Attack Attack! may be notable, but his side project? Don't think so. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Parent and Gongshow. Also, this should not be considered an author delete, as all that I did was create the article as a redirect. If the author of the full article, Draynah, votes delete, it should then be considered an author delete. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 02:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I just notified the author on his talk page about the AfD. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:50, 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 keep. Courcelles (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honky Tonk Confidential

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 14:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per apparent failure to follow WP:BEFORE. When I removed the PROD tag I indicated that coverage exists. See Allmusic bio and review, and Google News - coverage from the Washington Post, PopMatters, New York Times, etc. The article needs improvement, not deletion, and we don't need to waste the time of several editors on this discussion. --Michig (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs to be Wikified very badly (I will add an edit tag) but sources indicate that the group has achieved some notability. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:27, 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 keep. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boyce Avenue (band)

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

Band with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:MUSIC; article is sourced entirely to myspace, youtube, facebook and last.fm (which aren't acceptable). Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 14:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. No evidence of WP:BEFORE being followed. Plenty of coverage at Allmusic, Google News, etc. --Michig (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor had already followed WP:BEFORE through step 12 and PRODded the article. After it was dePRODded, I brought it here as a contested PROD per WP:CONTESTED. — Jeff G. ツ 20:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're bringing an article here it's up to you to follow WP:BEFORE. People put appallingly ill-judged PROD tags on articles all the time. Can you point me to the section in WP:CONTESTED that states that when a PROD tag is removed from an article the next step is to take it to AFD? Many articles have prods removed because the subject is notable. I indicated when I deprodded it that I found coverage - you could have either raised it on the talk page or asked me what coverage I found rather than bringing it straight to AFD. --Michig (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Unable to see how they meet WP:MUSIC - willing to change it it can be shown how. Codf1977 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Via coverage: Allmusic, Sun Herald, Herald Tribune, Manila Bulletin, Philipine Star - all look to be reliable sources, and there's further coverage in less obvious sources: [33], [34], [35], [36], although they're good enough for Google News. Given this coverage, I really don't see what the problem is re. notability, or why nobody else could find these sources.--Michig (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - that is indeed coverage, some less significant than others, close to #1 on WP:MUSIC though not sure they pass it. Codf1977 (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BAND as this group has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." As per Codf1977's observation,, which I respect and trust, while this band has received coverage, it is not significant and seems trivial. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial articles specifically about the band in newspapers such as the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and The Philippine Star cannot be considered 'trivial coverage'.--Michig (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Boyce Avenue. They just released a full-length album on Universal Republic last week; the sourcing in the article right now is lame, but Michig's findings above are sufficient to substantiate them as notable. Chubbles (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep (weak) - needs improvement as regards sourcing but the recent album and universal deal assert a fair degree of notability. Off2riorob (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources found by User: Michig appear to indicate notability. Should be moved to Boyce Avenue, per User: Chubbles.--Pink Bull 20:40, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruinz Ason

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

Label and producer of his album are unknown to Google except on Myspace and Wikipedia. The "album" is called a mixtabe here. I suspect lack of notability. Schuhpuppe (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Links have been added to prove notibilty, Label is an independent production label by Ruinz Ason And his Brother J-Flames.

The reviewer starts off calling the Album a mixtape then at the ends says "In fact this is a street album not even a mixtape. "

In all links it mentions J- Flames as the producer of all Ruinz Ason's 3 releases. The article has been edited to address notability issues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scriber1 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the producer is his brother, it's effectively self-published. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weak) - artist does not appear notable (yet). Off2riorob (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mix of advertising and copyvio [37] (now removed). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and from here. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:27, 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) 00:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We Can't Dance (band)

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

Non-notable band, per WP:BAND and WP:GNG - but only just, so probably not a speedy candidate. Reached the lower postions of the indie chart, but not the national UK chart per the requirement on WP:BAND. One item in their local newspaper (which documents their bad luck and failure to chart) is not generally the level of coverage which meets WP:GNG. I42 (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Actually there has been more than one article: Norwich Evening News, BBC, BBC, Norwich Evening News. Difficult to judge based on one release, which seems to have received a significant portion of its coverage due to the song's subject matter. Perhaps incubation is a possibility.--Michig (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This band are now targeting an irish chart success, due to Gary Doherty being Irish, online magazine Ybig (You boys in green) have taken the song and are campaigning to make it number one in Ireland. http://www.ybig.ie/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19604&PID=379677 Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.245.44 (talk) 21:14, 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, JForget 14:51, 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 delete. Currently insufficient showing of notability per discussion, however, I've userfied the page for the author. If add'l sources can be located, the article can be readily restored. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Hillman

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

Non-notable local singer. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article references do not provide "non-trivial" coverage. Article appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm not seeing evidence of the subject meeting WP:MUSICBIO. I checked canoe.ca, canada.com, and a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find sources that would help support WP:N notability here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it so thoroughly. Can't find the magazine reference nor an independent reference to a lengthy Fairchild radio interview with three young ladies including Vanessa Hillman, where all three were interviewed about themselves and given an opportunity to sing. Show was heard in Metro Vancouver and Victoria.RWIR (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:10, 23 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 merge to Tomas Kalnoky. Merge any notable information. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gimp (band)

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

no notability shown independent of a later band or of one notable member. no coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music duffbeerforme (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I nominated the article for WP:CSD under criteria A7. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Non-notable band. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 03:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of the above reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would have thought that at least a merge to Tomas Kalnoky or Catch 22 (band) (which seems notable ([38])) would be in order. The speedy tag is inappropriate.--Michig (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Polarpanda (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:01, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zeena Schreck

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

Long unreferenced BLP, questionable notability, full of gossip Yworo (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The individual does have some coverage[39][40][41][42][43] and the article may be salvagable... but it does needs a MAJOR sandblasting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Among those five examples of "coverage", this is a fascinating article indeed -- but ZS has only a bit part within it. Hoary (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well... that article offers something more than a trivial mention, it addresses the subject directly and in detail... and WP:GNG specifically allows that the subject need not be the main topic of the source material. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's the direct and detailed (or not) address: Some of [her dad's] diabolic transmissions can be heard as well on the somewhat campy 1966 LP The Satanic Mass, which features various unholy rituals, most spectacularly the demonic baptism of his three-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Zeena. ¶ Zeena Schreck was most likely the world's first famous Satanic toddler. Besides practicing the black arts, Schreck too is a musician; also an actress, photographer, and writer. She reigned as High Priestess and public spokesperson of the Church of Satan from 1985 until her resignation in 1990. "World's most famous [anything]" is always promising, but unfortunately I can't think of any other satanic toddlers and suspect that there's little competition. -- Hoary (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: She's second author of a book that I (in the reality-based community) vaguely infer consists of twaddle and that Amazon says is "Bestsellers Rank: #1,347,382 in Books": rather dismal in its own genre, if you consider that this thing makes it to "#10,458 in Books". It's claimed that she's a photographer -- any noteworthy exhibitions or published photobooks? -- Hoary (talk) 21:12, 20 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) 00:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I LOL'd a little at the ranking# 1,347,382 in Books. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:06, 26 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 consensus for deletion after 3 weeks JForget 01:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SA TrackWorks Productions

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

vanispamcruftisement Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what "vanispamcruftisement" means. I have added the Canada banner adding it to 4 relevant projects. Maybe the Vancouver project could help seeing as it is a Vancouver company? The article needs to be wikified and categorised properly. Argolin (talk) 01:23, 21 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, 25 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) 00:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. While this article is not technically a BLP it appears to be a WP:COATRACK article to talk about living people. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 2 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 no consensus. no consensus on whether meets WP:MUSICBIO JForget 01:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alka Ajith

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

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article clearly looks like a self boasting one with a lot proof-less info's & does look like a fan designed self promoting article .--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 18:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nomination, and the delete opinion above, do not explain why the sources in the article are inadequate for demonstrating notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - she won one reality singing show for kids in Tamil Nadu in one channel. To my knowledge there are atleast three such shows running in Tamil channels. Previous winners of this show (both adult and children formats) have gone nowhere (no record deals, solo albums etc) except performing stage shows /promotional events for the same channel. News coverage dies out after the season is over. But it is not clearly the case here. She has an existing singing career - a 2004 album and professional singing tours --Sodabottle (talk) 06:53, 20 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) 00:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect Nomination & sure not the right one , if we keep having articles with less or no info;s then why a set of rules ? .....this article fails notability ...--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 21:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

again, this is supposed to be a discussion about whether the article subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, which are based on whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Please explain how the sources in the article are insufficient rather than saying "just not notable". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in WP needs reliable sources and to be able to meet notability guidelines. This bio article does not meet the notability guidelines that I referred to. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second you Alan Liefting .--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 11:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I added additional citations to articles from The Hindu just now. The subject meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:10, 1 July 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) 11:07, 2 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danagog

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

Speedy-deleted "not notable", deletion queried by its author. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be given a chance because it reflects the life of a young Nigerian entertainer and the struggles of single-handedly being an achiever Damilae (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is not what Wikipedia is for. It's not for helping someone to climb in their career - it's for recording them when they get notable. With the current references, little or no chance. Blogs and own sites don't count as reliable. Peridon (talk) 21:31, 21 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, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had hoped some better references might have appeared. When they are obtainable, come back. In the meantime, good luck. Peridon (talk) 21:39, 26 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture (US band)

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musical ensembles. Neelix (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musical ensembles. Point 6 – "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.". John Wylie and Damien Moyal are notable in their own right, although some of the other band members are certainly future AfD cases. Lugnuts (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The band members in the last incarnation largely became this band. Some sources on the Wylie and Moyal articles might make the criterion 6 argument more convincing. It looks like there might be some GNews hits for Moyal: [44]--Michig (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - The claim to notability based on the independent notability of Wylie and Moyal is a cyclic one; Moyal's claim to notability is that he has been in notable bands like Culture while Culture's claim to notability is that it has had notable members like Moyal. The band itself does not pass the the general notability guideline as it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Neelix (talk) 14:55, 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) 00:09, 25 June 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) 11:08, 2 July 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) 01:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. -Reconsider ! 11:58, 11 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Verlinden

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. no extensive coverage [45]. have a lot of hits on youtube does not advance notability see WP:BIG. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources already in article ([46] [47]) constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources. One of the sources also refers to him being a guest on Sunrise (New Zealand TV program), which I am unable to find a clip of but would also constitute significant coverage by a reliable independent source. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The argument for notability seems to be based on a "flash in the pan" occurrence, see WP:NRVE. One notorious appearance as a variety act and success in talent shows is a weak case for notability unless the talent contests are particularly noteworthy (unsure on this). The article also seems heavily geared toward promoting the subject rather than reporting on it, though that could be salvaged with rewrites and neutral sources. Csrwizard (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudiceif his career should happen to take off again. Only one news result since November 2008 (singing at Christmas in the Park). From what I've read, there is no national competition to qualify for the Hollywood competition - just one talent agency organises a team. Appearing on "Sunrise" per se certainly isn't proof of notability.dramatic (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources already in article re Sunrise TV interview ([48]

Confirming there is a National NZ Competition to qualify for Hollywood competition 'Aim to Fame' [www.aimtofame.co.nz] Source has been working in NZ professional musical theatre productions, ie; 'Oliver' with the Auckland Theatre Company and as 'John' in Peter Pan with National Youth Theatre Company, 'Young Tommy' in the Tommy Musical with Stage Two Productions and just recently as Macduff's son in Macbeth with Stage Two Productions. This source is 12 years old with a solid career ahead of him. Currently sitting around 22nd most subscribed musician in New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.167.8 (talk) 10:03, 21 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) 00:02, 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, NW (Talk) 08:40, 1 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 18th Street Singers

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 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) 00:09, 23 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. Substantial additional sources have been identified in the course of this AFD and there have been no arguments for deletion (and numerous for retention) in the subsequent two weeks. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gonjasufi

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

No substantial indication of notability for 3 months. All sources are first person or similarly not reliable sources Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 3 months! Shadowjams is on target here, good work. Jusdafax 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Click on the link to the article on his album and you'll see several sources linked, including Metacritic, which links to lots of reviews. See also the Allmusic biography. The following all come up in the first 2 pages of Google results for Gonjasufi, which makes the deletion nomination somewhat mystifying: BBC, Drowned in Sound, The Guardian, Pitchfork Media. Bringing articles like this to AFD without at least spending a few minutes looking for evidence of notability simply wastes the time of other editors. --Michig (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)...or, worse, results in an article on a notable subject being deleted.--Michig (talk) 16:17, 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) 00:04, 23 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) 01:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But an obviously notable one that already has sources (one URL was broken - I've fixed it). Why relist?--Michig (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just a quick glance at the Metacritic page given by Michig is enough to see that this artist has generated enough coverage and reviews in reliable sources to warrant an article. Easily notable enough. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's on my todo list to add all these sources to the article. I haven't had time recently but will get round to it when I can.--Michig (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now - see also the album article.--Michig (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The pointers given by Michig show that there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources, easily meets WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:44, 5 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J.Viewz

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

Mostly a procedural nom per Jeff G's prod, which was removed by an IP primarily involved in editing this page. The underlying concern is substantial: no sources that aren't first person for a band, and no substantial editing outside of those select editors. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - It was AfD in late 2008, and recreated within 4 months thereafter, that version being this nom. Shadowjams (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The band is notable, at least in Israel. I added third-party sources, albeit mostly in Hebrew and removed the commercial parts of the article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 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) 00:02, 23 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beki and the Bullets

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

fails WP:MUSIC. I query the citations listed as those sources usually come up in gnews. 1 hit in gnews in a Turkish newspaper. [49] LibStar (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I couldn't find some of the cited sources, even searching the NewsUK archive. I did find this brief mention from The Age and this interview from Time Out New York. The band does, however, contain at least 2 (maybe 3) members of multiple Aria Award-nominated (and certainly notable)[50][51] band The Mavis's, so I'm inclined to either keep this here or merge into that article, probably the latter at the moment.--Michig (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those sources can be found with Factiva and can be verified by anyone with access which is freely available in Australia through the National Library of Australia. Whilst a lot of The Age articles do come up in GNews I haven't noticed the other sources coming up a lot. What we have here is a band made up from members of two notable bands that also has coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- disclaimer, I started this article. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - here is The Age article, yes it is on the trivial side but I used for verification purposes. (found on gnews using Beki & the Bullets). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 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) 00:02, 23 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. treating as prod Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide's cape

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

Notability. Already deleted once, a while back, so things might have changed. Chris (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following was posted on my talk page, and I moved it here:

Hello there...
I think that Adelaide's Cape has enough notable sources/achievements to be included on Wikipedia now (BBC, The Independent, mainstream festival appearances confirmed etc). He has surely achieved as much as The Kabeedies, who have a page here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kabeedies Would be interested to hear your thoughts. Hope I'm discussing this in the right place?
Lauren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigsawlauren (talk • contribs) 19:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that none of the independent references or sources you have given are actually about the band; they're all about the event. Let's see what other people think... Chris (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article is exclusively about Adelaide's Cape, and links to statements about the festivals he's playing surely provide relevant references? I've added in a link to the Wychwood website where Adelaide's Cape is listed now too http://www.wychwoodfestival.com/line-up/bbc-introducing/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigsawlauren (talk • contribs) 08:55, 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) 00:00, 23 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) 01:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 30 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. –MuZemike 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Solati

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

This is a musician who does not obviously meet WP:BAND but whose article has been edited by a lot of people since 2006. The article gives no references but says that he has been called a "hero" of Persian pop music and "a sound over all sounds," which may indicate some cultural status, but nothing is explained or referenced.

I am unable to find any evidence that any of his albums were successful enough to make this person notable. Blue Rasberry 02:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 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) 00:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per section 11 and 12. Most of USA based Iranian pop singers are banned within the country, but they are very very popular in Iran. During these years some radio and TV stations like Radio Farda, Radio Zamaneh, BBC Persian, and VOA broadcast regularly their works. Solati is not among the top 10 of persian singers but is one the most successful, he and her sister Shohreh Solati. See this for more info. Honestly I couldn't find good things about him, even in Persian!Farhikht (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesnt meet WP:Music , maybe its a good article for Farsi wikipedia but English reliable sources are needed for English wiki and I couldnt find notable reviews at Allmusic , --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The article doesn't give proofs of notability,--Rirunmot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shahyad

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

This is a musician. The current version of this article does not meet WP:BAND. I checked a few historical versions; they do not meet this either.

I would have CSD'd this, but the article has been around almost entirely in this form since 2006. The guy does have four albums, and they seem to all have generated some promotional interviews, but I do not think he has been promoted outside the context of his own music, and I do not think his music style is notable for any particular reason, but I would bring this to discussion anyway just because of the longevity and edit history of this article. Blue Rasberry 01:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 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) 00:03, 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) 00:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesnt meet WP:Music , couldnt find any reliable sources, the author should write it again with reliable sources. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 12:41, 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Rock

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

Article's subject is a musician who has not released an album. He seems to meet WP:BAND only by having a single on a country's national music chart, as it is stated that his song "Baby June" reached position 97 in Ireland in 2010 and 1xx positions in New Zealand, Switzerland, and Sweden.

The interviews used as references seem to be self-promotion with conversation about politics in Iran coming secondary; from the content now in the article, this person is pushed as notable for his music and except for the unreferenced chart positions, I do not think he meets notability criteria.

By the way, what chart positions matter? Does having a single that makes spot 97 make one notable? What about over a hundred? Has a line been demarcated? Blue Rasberry 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also just nominated Baby June (Moe Rock song) for deletion. Blue Rasberry 01:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inquiry The page has met the required necessities for notability according to the Criteria for musicians and ensembles found at the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metroparkoil (talk • contribs) 23:01, 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) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IRMA only lists top 50 singles at their site (including archives eg). Unless they publish a report showing top 100 I'd say the unsourced #97 is not good enough. I'd also say the unsourced outside to 100 also falls short. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk)

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) 01:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueline Medic

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

fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. no significant indepth coverage. a few gnews hits but not enough for significant coverage. [52]. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to two Fueled by Ramen albums I've now updated the article with coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 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) 00:00, 23 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 Real Chance of Love (season 1). –MuZemike 00:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Givens

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

This bio is entirely unsourced. A search in GoogleNews comes up with nothing, which indicates that perhaps this article should be deleted. Pink Bull 04:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep he and his brother appeared on several reality television programs and were even the subject of their own show, which aired for two seasons. The news link above does return results. If it is decided that there isn't enough material for an individual article, then I would suggest redirecting the page to Real Chance of Love, and merging the most important information there. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the Google News results. The regular Google News search turns up nothing.[53] I can't explain the discrepancy. Regardless, five positive results alone do not establish notability, in my opinion.--Pink Bull 16:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reality show contestants are non encyclopedic. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 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) 00:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are reliable sources and I see no reason why to delete this interesting article. --Rirunmot 00:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Delete - notability not established at this time, sources are blogs and short blurbs, hard to see how the article will get better unless he becomes better known. Seaphoto^Talk 04:50, 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) 00:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- This article is highly connected to the article "Real Chance of Love (season 1)", which has good reliable sources. L. E. Evans (talk) 05:40, 2 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 redirect to Legend of the Black Shawarma. T. Canens (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing the Opponent

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for singles. Neelix (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable band, very notable guest vocalist, notable remixers. Not sure what the problem here is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Notability is not inherited. As stated in the applicable guidelines, "most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article." This single has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" as Wikipedia:Notability requires. Like most singles by notable bands, this one is not sufficiently notable for an independent article. Neelix (talk) 16:12, 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) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. I could barely find two sources for this song, outside of lyric links and music vidoes, and those two sources were little known blogs and local newspapers that mention the song in passing, which is not sufficient for notability. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legend of the Black Shawarma. Not enough info available for stand-alone article and redirects are cheap. Location (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legend of the Black Shawarma - Song fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 17:02, 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 no consensus. I'm closing this as no consensus because while there were two !votes to delete, they both came before the author added references. No one has opined since the article was relisted to evaluate the sources, and I don't think its so obvious that I should do it as part of closing the article. If any editor wishes to renominate, they may do so immediately, but please comment on the references added. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alverez

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

No assertion of notability. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and similar guidelines. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Not sure if redirect to Alvarez is warranted as a plausible (misspelled) search term. Location (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 03:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC) The remainder of the article will be updated today with notable, credible citations, links and works. I apologize for moving this page from my personal pages too early. thank you for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thephmp (talk • contribs) 08:03, 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) 00:00, 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. No true arguments for retention surfaced. –MuZemike 00:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You (musician)

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

I declined BLPprod because I'm finding some possible evidence of this person in Japanese: Google News Archive. I'm sending this to AfD in hopes someone who can read Japanese can evaluate this. If no such help is forthcoming and if no other reliable sources can be found, this should be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, because you were right to rollback that vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.92.157 (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)~~ [reply]

This editor has been blocked for disruptive editing at several AFD's. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:48, 13 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, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Source presumed unreliable, insignificant and non-notable if in a foreign language. T3h 1337 b0y 06:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? That's not how it works.Minnowtaur (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Minnowtaur. The fact that a source is in a foreign language may make it difficult, perhaps even impractical, to establish the verifiability of the subject, but such a source should not automatically be assumed to be unreliable, nor the coverage automatically assumed to be insignificant. That said, the article may still qualify for deletion if no one is willing and able to review the Japanese source (or find other sources), as noted by the nominator. Davnor (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Per the nomination. Davnor (talk) 14:06, 23 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible system

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

Appears to be a non-notable musician per WP:BAND, WP:GNG and WP:BLP - lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources. BLP-PROD removed with single ref; article previously created by same user back in 2007, it still seems non-notable Chzz ► 22:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup significantly. This article is currently overly promotional and imparts very little real information to the reader, but the subject does meet WP:GNG: the BBC, Guardian and Independent are significant, reliable sources. I42 (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Danieleonharper (talk · contribs) left some further links on my talk page, saying "I can't get my head around how to add links etc properly e.g. to reviews";

Chzz ► 22:09, 10 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, 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) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has a lot of notable sources, it just needs to use them. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdallah Al Rowaished

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

Unable to locate any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or pass WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you search Google News under his name written in Arabic [54], you get quite a lot of hits, most of which are to this singer, and in reliable sources. Below are just 3 a few (with dreadful machine tanslations):

BBC (Arabic service) [55]
Asharq Al-Awsat [56]
Al Arabiya [57]
Panorama [58]
Al Rai [59]

Might be worth contacting a WikiProject that covers Arabic subjects. Voceditenore (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Arab world. – Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Google News archive search for the spelling "Abdullah Al Ruwaished" finds a few sources in English.[60] I'm sure that there are many other possible spelling combinations, as there is no generally accepted standard for transcribing Arabic names into the Roman alphabet. Note that there is another article about the subject at Abdallah Abdalrahman Alruwaished, which is also being discussed for deletion. Is there any way we can combine these discussions? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:38, 11 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) 00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Numerous mentions in the Arabic press, along with many in English in a variety of spellings. Subject is reasonably well known throughout the Arabic world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnowtaur (talk • contribs) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient references exist to demonstrate notability. (References don't have to be in English.) I'm going to suggest a merge with the content of the other article, though. Robofish (talk) 15:42, 18 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) 00:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP and can use some more sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - users claim notability but the article has no independent citations and as it is needs deleting. Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it took me ten minutes to find two non-trivial sources even in English and add them to the article. More are clearly available in Arabic as mentioned above. Obvious evidence of meeting WP:BIO. cab (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of coverage in the Arab-speaking press, as seen above. Two non-trivial sources have been added in English and I'm going to put some of the Arabic ones in the external links. The sources do not have to be in English. Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 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. NW (Talk) 13:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RTillery

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

no real notability shown for this bio. of the coverage provided none of the refs that provide independent coverage of RTillery appear to be reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 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, 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) 00:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet either of the WP:MUSIC or WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. There might be an argument for the notability of Decypher Collective, which this person supposedly helped to form, but it's unclear how deep his involvement with the group is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:49, 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 merge to Celtae. –MuZemike 01:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan MacDonald

AfDs for this article:

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

Can not find sufficient reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. At the first AfD for this page the only source offered was his band's site. J04n(talk page) 23:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Argolin (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- for reasons given in first AfD- JJJ999 (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I added some sources since the AfD was initiated.) I'd suggest keeping most of the info in some form, since Celtae is a notable band (meets WP:BAND criterion #1): The Telegram has written about them, and the Ottawa Citizen and Exclaim! have album reviews [61]. It's somewhat questionable whether MacDonald is notable enough separately for an article, so a merge might be best. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:41, 12 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) 00:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or new article on the band. Border-line notable here, just enough coverage and the national debate championship as well. Although Celtae should get at least some article as Paul Erik suggested above so that in the case it ends up with a merge or a delete, the info on this article should be included on a band's article. JForget 13:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if there is no objection I would like to rename this Celtae and move it to the incubator to be better developed. J04n(talk page) 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote a new article on Celtae, just a start, but I think Nathan MacDonald should be merged there. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:54, 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) 00:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the band article, but I'm not sure about the notability of the band!Farhikht (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In a lot of cases I would vote delete in articles like these, but his history (especially being the winner of a debate tournament) just pushes him above the very blurry line of notability. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 19:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Paul Erik. Even the band is admittedly kind of borderline, but there's no real need to keep both. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 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. NW (Talk) 15:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hideshi Takatani

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

Being on interesting tours does not address the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. There are no significant results in Google News that would address notability. As the website linked is non-English I am raising for further discussion as notability may be demonstrable in non-English sources not indexed by Google by the English version of "Hideshi Takatani" as per WP:BIAS. Fæ (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject appears to be notable in many ways, not the least of which has been to have played alongside musicians such as Larry Carlton, a jazz legend that any musician would be undertandably proud to have worked with, for or against in any way. Quite a feather in anyone's cap by my estimation. I've done a bit of cleanup, added a reference and there appears to be more references available. I'd suggest a little time for cleanup and we can improve this one to the degree it requires for retention. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Comment I noted many, many online articles about the subject on Japanese sites. The English equivalents were fewer, but still I found half a dozen with my first Google search. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Comment Am unable to independently verify "G2" claims. Cannot find much online to support contention. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 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) 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability to pass WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. The references provided are brief mentions, nothing in terms of specific and detailed coverage. As the nom correctly notes, having performed on some interesting tours or even alongside some famous artists is not, by itself, sufficient to establish notability, in the absence of specific coverage of this musician himself. Nsk92 (talk) 18:01, 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 no consensus. All of the independent "keeps" were qualified (weak, for now, etc.) and the article itself is not BLP quality. Renomination is likely if it doesn't improves significantly. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanka Dineth

AfDs for this article:

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

Prior version was recently deleted at AFD. New version was created, it is essentially a stub on a WP:BLP, and not really sourced that great. Deferring to community consensus, here for a discussion. Cheers. -- Cirt (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I'm still developing this article. Yes, i know the better way to do it is to create article as a "Special My Page" and then move it to public space once it was completed.. But this time i've skipped the "Special my Page" step and it's all my fault.. Anyway, i'll edit the article ASAP to meet necessary criteria.. Help from any Sri Lanka editor gladly welcomed. Nidahasa (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in primary sources. Self promotion --Wipeouting (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Wipeouting (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Wipeouting (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)</small[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Sanka Dineth is covered in reliable sources (The Daily News and The Sunday Times; however, it's not significant coverage: in one case he is mentioned in passing, in the other he gets a three-line short bio and a quote), got an interview on The Nation TV Guide, is claimed to have been selected to promote several prominent brands in Sri Lanka and is credited as the author of the score of a movie (whose notability is disputed). Whilst each of these facts, taken singularly, would not justify an article about him (neither under WP:GNG nor under WP:MUSICBIO, criterion 10), if I look at the big picture I can't help thinking he just might be notable, so I'll !vote (very weak) keep under WP:PAPER. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:20, 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) 00:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - As Salvio said above, the article has a number of slightly significant sources that, when taken collectively, make this singer somewhat notable. Taking this into account along with the article's author's statement above that he is working to expand the article, I say keep for now. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 19:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not Agree with User talk:Salvio giuliano,User talk:Parent5446Ideas.In Sri Lanka. There are Upcoming musicians more than 100 come-up to the field evry year. because we have lots of reality television programs in Sri Lanka.Those are getting media publicity using news pares, we blogs very easily. as an example this Sanka Dineth was selected Sirasa Superstar2007 for 6th place. There are lots of other musicians out side than him.If Wikipedia is a platform or personal blogs space, we should give opportunity create articles for all this kind of persons who has publicity.--Wipeouting (talk) 18:39, 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.

Bands and musicians Templates for deletion

Proposed deletions

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

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Hillman}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimp (band)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Haze}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeena Schreck}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SA TrackWorks Productions}}

Revision as of 07:28, 26 June 2010

Bands and musicians

Bands and musicians Templates for deletion

Categories