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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:27, 13 June 2018

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fereidoun Khoshnoud

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 11:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is clearly promotional. 344917661X (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWP:GNG not established. Clearly a promotional article. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've restored the original sourced article, the newer version upon which this AfD is based was pure promo/spam.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at users and IP addresses like Abbaszadehir, EmadBadpour, 188.229.0.216 and 204.18.156.160 it clearly shows this page was created by paid editors who have been involved in socket-puppetry on Wikipedia. These 2 accounts and IP addresses may all well indeed link to one person itself if investigated further, this page is a clear example of what self-promotion looks like on Wikipedia rather than something that should be included in a Encyclopedia. I suggest it should be deleted immediately by an admin as this page goes against all the values of the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 12:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional. I'm not seeing notability from the sources, either. (although I can't read Persian, I dropped the pages into Google Translate) Vermont (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Vinante

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

Insufficient coverage in press and secondary sources of this restaurant singer and political worker: a Daily Mail article which only mentions him as providing a selfie with Philip May in a photo caption, a Telegraph article which doesn't mention him by name at all (just a photo of "a guitarist and singer entertain customers"), a minor summary article in the Italian press about the inaugural meeting of his political group. Other Italian sources given are dead links or do not appear to mention him.

Article was written by User:Joan Bozoky, who shares a name with the CEO of the Green Room Club, of which Vinante is a director. From the talk page, the notability issue has been rejected by Bozoky in the past. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:04, 13 June 2018 (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 need to draw this out, WP:SNOW. Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aretha Henry

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

See also Enchanted (Aretha Henry album) and Beautiful (Aretha Henry album). Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The second album to chart was on an Amazon.com chart, while all other positions are on charts for a seemingly non-notable music pool. Edited by a SPA who created the album articles and likely has a COI, though most of those contributions have been removed, except possibly the references. Now turning to the sources:

A directory listing with no information.
Possible dead link.
Dead link.
Official website.
Directory listing, includes some material from this article.
No professional reviews at AllMusic.
Not working, reports as busy.
iTunes listing for a various-artists compilation by a non-notable record label.
A chart from the music pool mentioned above.
A chart from the music pool mentioned above.
Dead link, labeled as an interview.
Looks like a primary source.
Same website as [12].
A chart from the music pool mentioned above.
A chart from the music pool mentioned above.
A chart from the music pool mentioned above.
Does not mention Henry, her album Superhuman, or whatever "Masterpiece" is.
Having difficulty loading this one, but according to @Richard3120:, it is "a reproduction of a press notice advertising the album."
A chart from the music pool mentioned above.
Short press release on her record label, Oz Avenue Entertainment. Oz Avenue Entertainment is not notable.
An interview on YouTube.
A directory entry with no information about the artist.
Short "reader-submitted" local announcement of her wedding.

According to a Google search, it may fail WP:GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on point 18 above - at the bottom of the source in question are the words "The post 'New Music: Aretha Henry Releases New Album Superhuman' appeared first on Business Press Release Service", with a link to the original press release. Richard3120 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted by LaundryPizza, see also the two album AfD's (not bundled together because they were nominated by different people). LaundryPizza has a fine analysis of the sources used in the singer's article; all are run of the mill song listings or self-generated promotional items, and the charts are of suspicious validity. Over at one of the album discussions, Richard3120 did a search and found this newspaper piece: [1], and I have been unable to find anything else. Good luck to the singer but she is in pure self-promotional mode right now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like mentioned above, lack of WP:RS and possible WP:COI. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I wish Ms Henry the best in her music career, but to date the article from her local newspaper (linked by Doomsdayer520 above) seems to be the only substantial independent source available. Richard3120 (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NMUSICBIO. Good promotional work, folks, but what can you do: These AfDonauts are something else. -The Gnome (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to Sum Up - There is a lot of "See also" in the world of Aretha Henry deletion discussions. We now have four AfDs nominated by four different people over five days. This shows you the power of community, if you ask me. Here is what we have so far:

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 18 June 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Mountaingrove

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

This figure is not notable, less than 30 google news results, and she established a very small magazine that has little to no coverage or attention to this day. Her land trust was 147 acres. To put that into context, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy an actually notable land trust has 250,000 acres. ShimonChai (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The related journal WomanSpirit is also up for deletion here --Theredproject (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it seems worth noting that her papers are in the archives of a major university [2] and her NPR affiliate did not one, but two 30m shows to her memory [3] [4] and the local paper published an obituary [5] --Theredproject (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's typical for the local paper publish an obituary for people who have little to know notability, it means nothing in terms of notability. ShimonChai (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A paid obituary does not establish notability. An article about the subject written by a staff writer of the newspaper does establish notability. Moreover, the radio broadcasts also establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has substantial coverage in reliable sources such as a women's bio encyclopedia published by the respected academic publisher Routledge as well as other rs books and press, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

plus add that to have ones papers considered important enough to be included as part of a major university (U of Oregon) collection is no small accomplishment. A clear keep. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entry for Moutaingrove in Feminists Who Changed America is a clear example of analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (the archive referred to above). Vexations (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Vexations and Atlantic306. /Julle (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2018 (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lee (artist)

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

He runs a podcast, but there are not enough independent reliable sources to get him over WP:GNG 2Joules (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was on Mad TV and a lead singer of a band as well. The Kassem G interview should count as a reliable source as well as ATC. If you don't agree with that then merge into his brother's article? -- Thats Just Great (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added more links to article -- Thats Just Great (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It seems that the three claims to notability are: 1) being a lead singer of a band, 2) appearing on a TV show (not as a cast member), and 3) running a podcast that has hosted notable people. For 1) to qualify for WP:MUSIC, there needs to be independent sources proving the notability of the band according to the criteria (the given sources are a blog and a store webpage). For 2), appearing on a TV show is insufficient for WP:NACTOR. For 3), the article needs independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. As of now, most of the references are from YouTube, blogs, or PornHub. The subject does not seem to qualify for the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In any case, if it is decided that this page should be deleted, the entire biography should not be merged into his brother's article.MarkH21 (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added independent sources proving the notability of the band including menetions in VOGUE and Billboard. Also added links to their latest performance at Grizzly Fest. -- Thats Just Great (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added another Mangchi article from Detroit's Metro Times Weekly
Expanded more on Mangchi. -- Thats Just Great (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As well as "3) running a podcast that has hosted notable people" as shown in the article he has been interviewed by notable people on new media, including famous podcasts. -- Thats Just Great (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While User:MarkH21 says "if it is decided that this page should be deleted, the entire biography should not be merged into his brother's article" While I feel the article stands on its own and should be ruled KEEP if that is not the case then the next logical step would be to MERGE the article into Bobby Lee's article -- Thats Just Great (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Staleworth

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

This band does not appear to be notable enough. 2Joules (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:36, 11 June 2018 (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. WP:SKCRIT#1 - no argument for deletion or redirection. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Sandhu

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

Just another Punjabi Singer/Rapper without any notability. Could be a candidate for CSD, but lets do it this way. 2Joules (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in reliable sources such as Times of India, India.com , one of his singles has 12 million views on YouTube, seems to pass WP:NMUSIC, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2018 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francina Connors

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

Coverage seems to be local mostly. An educated guess could be that this is more suited for a merge/passing mention in one of collaborations instead of an article, but I think this should be deleted. 2Joules (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find substantial coverage. Mostly just various passing mentions. Renata (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no substantial news or media Joaomufc (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Lindahl

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

Non-notable musician. PRehse (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near enough to show that Lindahl is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep does have an AllMusic bio here which states that he was a X Factor finalist at the age of 14 but it doesn't review or even list any solo releases, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Finalists aren't notable, even if we trusted AllMusic bios, which we don't. No evidence he can pass the GNG. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:37, 20 June 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaphet Kotto (band)

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

Hello. This passes neither WP:BAND nor WP:GNG. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two full-length releases on Ebullition meets WP:MUSIC; there's a lot of noise in the source record from the actor, but I'd be surprised if this band didn't get covered by indie punk zines of the day, like Heartattack and Maximum Rocknroll. Chubbles (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 26 June 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty (musician)

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

No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, and I can find no significant coverage online in WP:RS. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Olive Records. TMG^talk 09:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 09:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 09:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 09:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References both in article and BEFORE do not indicate subject passes WP:MUSICBIO, nor the WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable musician. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources found to support this artist currently meets [[WP:MUSICBIO]] or [[WP:BASIC]]/[[WP:GNG]]. Sam Sailor 10:53, 13 June 2018 (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. Alex Shih (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Broughton (musician)

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

I don't see evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. The subject almost meets criterion #2 except we don't count WP:SINGLEVENDOR music charts (like iTunes) toward notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 05:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 05:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 04:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator; the musician is close to notability but not quite. He got noticed for opening a few shows for a notable band but notability is not inherited, and the charity single with the hit video was a one-time event. Beyond those two things, he has received very little reliable media coverage and his works can only be found in the typical streaming and self-promotional sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage too thin to confer notability. No objection to having this article back if that changes. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sabazius (band)

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

Prolific studio act that cranked out huge amounts of material for a while, getting them lots of routine listings at streaming and social media sites. But they have very little significant coverage in reliable media sources. Two items are already used in the article: a basic introduction to their existence at Terrorizer magazine and an interview with a questionably reliable fanzine called Destructive Music. They also got a little bit of notice for one of their songs: [6], [7]. These minor mentions do not quite add up to notability for a band. Also, do not confuse the band with Sabazios from mythology, whose name is sometimes spelled like the band's. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep releases on a notable label Earache, coverage in rs such as Metalsucks, Terrorizer Atlantic306 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Won't argue about whether the Terrorizer article [8] is enough, and we can leave that to other voters if there are any. But I would like to point out that the Metal Sucks article (linked in my nomination) is only about one song that got noticed because it is 11 hours long, and says nothing about the band themselves. The same is true of the Metal Injection article (also linked above). Perhaps WP:BLP1E is relevant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The editor whose username is Z0 08:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Wan

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:NMUSICBIO. Hiàn (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the article has sources, only one or two come close to being reliable. I can find sources attesting to the existence of the subject's music, but multiple, independent, reliable sources that'd support an article do not appear to be out there. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 12:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Kühbauch

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, just two passing mentions found nothing in depth. Edidiong (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, relevance is given, author and musician works with well-known musicians and his works are available worldwide - so there should be a chance for people, who don't know him and speak English, to inform themselves about him. If there are any technical losses of the article, please let me know, I will work on it immediately! user:springfountain —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

springfountain, for an article on the English Wikipedia, a musician should pass the criteria for WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources should not come from the artist's own social media websites, blogs or simply links to iTunes, Amazon, etc. which simply prove the artist's music exists. What we are looking for is significant coverage of Svensson in reliable, independent sources such as national newspapers, or established music magazines with editorial oversight, either in print or online format. The fact that he has worked with other notable musicians does not make him notable just by association with them - see WP:INHERITED. Richard3120 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indeed fails WP:MUSICBIO. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2018 (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Elliott Musician

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

Non-notable singer. The given sources do not establish notability (Xing listing, and ref #2 doesn't mention his name or the referenced song). A google search revealed no in-depth coverage in independent sources (just a few song listings on sales sites and 1-2 promotional gig announcements). GermanJoe (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can find nothing but basic song listings and promotional info copied from his own website. Note that there are two other Larry Elliott's in WP: one is an author and the other a football coach. Those will complicate the search for info on this musician. The title of this article would have to be corrected if it is kept. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:BEFORE can't find any WP:RS to support the subject. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Pin-Ups. Sandstein 05:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mondo C. Castro

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

No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO independently of The Pin-Ups. His new band is not yet notable per WP:Articles for deletion/The Beautiful Letdown (band). He has had a few roles presenting television and radio, but I can't find significant coverage of him in multiple WP:RS outside of passing mentions in connection with his first band: all I could find was this interview, already cited in the article. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pin-Ups (which by the way is in dire need of clean-up). I do not doubt that the gentleman has worked in many fields and has been in a few bands, but the Pin-Ups are his only endeavor to be noticed by reliable and independent media sources. This article is uncomfortably close to self-promotion or his CV/resume. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:29, 22 June 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 05:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sara'h (singer)

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

While I'm not fluent in French, the Google translation of this article into English leads me to believe that this is a non-notable singer. Strikerforce^Talk 17:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like her music, but that doesn't mean that reliable sources exist to show notability (they don't). Even the source that is on the page lists her has having one song that charted at 164 - hardly an accomplishment worthy of an article. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 17:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I restored the previous English content and removed the copyvio in French. Largoplazo (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:NSINGER and WP:NWEB. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Bradley Palmer

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

Jaclyn Bradley Palmer is a hugely successful singer songwriter with multiple albums to her name, who has featured prominently on a Dutch talent show, is an acclaimed filmmaker and ground-breaking therapist. Or so I inferred from reading the article - but looking deeper it appears this is all a serious exaggeration. In fact, I can find no evidence she even meets any inclusion guidelines.

Does she meet the WP:GNG? There certainly are articles about her, particularly about her appearence on a Dutch talent show. So we can at least be confident she exists. But is she notable? These articles are almost exclusively local publications featuring local-interest stories. Such publications routinely feature local residents in this manner; the articles do not of themselves appear to demonstrate any sort of global or even national significance and the lack of national coverage is telling. Even the prominent claim that she was featured as one of the "most interesting poeople" of 2016 by a Cleveland Magazine loses it shine when you realise 30 people were all the most interesting in that year.

As a musician, WP:MUSICBIO provides the clearest guidance. She certainly hasn't had the level of success demanded there - her albums appear to be unpublished or self-published (see here, for example) and her highly lauded appearance on The Voice of Holland seems to have been a brief early-round few minutes in the spotlight - way less than the third place or better demanded for notability.

Her film work, similarly, appears to be at best self-published. It's hard to verify - the article says she directed and produced "the documentary on the USS Indianapolis" but it's unreferenced and gives no clue as to what the documentary actually is. Her "musical tribute to the victims of gun violence" appears to be a self-produced video for one of her self-produced songs.

Her music therapy work is an interesting string in her bow but again not an indication of notability - huge numbers of people are involved in the running of clinical studies; there does not appear to be anything especially notable about hers.

I wish her good luck in achieving her aims, but it appears to be way WP:TOOSOON for an article yet.

Then there's the question of how we have come to have an article that is so overly exaggerated. It becomes clear when you look at the edit history: it was created by someone with the ID Jacklynlala, a WP:SPA that has made no other edits before or since. It was subsequently significantly developed by another SPA going by the name of musicpressinc (now blocked) and then by an SPA IP that knows the subject well enough to know how she thinks. Finally it has been edited by a new user who has also not edited anything else but did feel sufficiently proficient to remove a maintenance tag in support of the IP which had twice removed it and twice been reverted. In fact, of 150 edits in total, 116 are accounted for by just these four editors, and together they have developed the article in turn. The obvious conflict of interest, most likely an autobiography, severely undermines any suggestion that the article may be balanced and neutral, and explains the clear promotional content within it.

So for reasons of notability and spam, this article does not belong. It should be deleted. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly Dorsetonian, I don't know what this chick did to you to make you so angry that you had to write this thesis I just had to read. Read 3 lines of this and you know it fails WP:Promotional by miles. Maybe could be considered with serious, serious rewrite. Seafox289 (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve If the article has been created by people who do not understand Wikipedia policies, that is a reason for us to re-consider and improve, not summarily delete. If there is a Wikipedia policy saying that WP:GNG should ignore local-interest publications, I do not know that policy. Also, honestly, Seafox289, "this chick"? Let us show ourselves better representatives of Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the local-interest publications, I should clarify. WP:MUSICBIO is pretty clear that only winning 1st-3rd place in a "major music competition" is of itself notable. When someone appears on such a show there will be a degree of local interest, and so it follows there a level of routine coverage of contestants placed fourth and lower which does not confer notability. I don't see evidence there is anything exceptional here, so the GNG doesn't appear to be met. If the subject isn't notable, no amount of article improvement will make her so. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure what to make of the nominator's obsessively long explanation, and charges of a conflict of interest might be a little beyond the tradition of assuming good faith at Wikipedia. The nominator has a convincing analysis on how this woman does not meet the notability requirements for a musician, but since she has done many things the article could possibly survive on her work in film (WP:FILMMAKER) or science (WP:NACADEMIC). Alas, in all three endeavors she comes up just a little short on notability for a Wikipedia article. Without that, the article does seem like an attempt at promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with DOOMSDAYER520 and also with Dorsetonian that the topic of article does not rise to NMUSICIAN, NFILMMAKER, NACADEMIC, or for that matter WP:NPOL. My Keep !vote is based on WP:GNG criterion, specifically "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This criterion is clearly met by the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per suggestion from House of Change and Seafox289 I have added notability criteria. According to the criteria for musicians, article 10, "the person must have performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., performance in a television show or notable film." This artist was in the cast of two seasons of Breaking Bonaduce, making “frequent appearances” on the popular Vh1 show. http://dannybonaduce.net/dannybonaduce/2016/01/04/breaking-bonaduce-music-cleveland-magazine-names-lorain-native-one-interesting-people-2016/ She and her music were featured on the show. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7073589/, on the episodes Gretchen Bonaduce played with her band. (episodes 3.1 and 2.7). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bonaduce

Also according to article 1 of criteria for notability, this artist has many independent reference/news sources and has made national/ international headlines, more of which I found and have been added. Subjective wording and advertisement wording has been removed mostly by House of Change. -more editing may be needed in this respect but subjectivity improved. These items contribute to verification of notability. Up for further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triptopia (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Triptopia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD nomination could be a poster child for contemptuous dismissal of biographies because we're offended by amateur editing, even if the subject clearly meets GNG. Multiple independent sources wrote about JBP because she did a lot of different things that happened to interest multiple independent RS reporters, even if her activities fail to interest someone so offended by amateur efforts at editing Wikipedia that they want to torch rather than improve a BLP. Then instead of policy arguments, we get reasons why multiple "reliable sources" shouldn't count: local interest articles shouldn't count, being one of the 30 most interesting people in Cleveland shouldn't count, etc. Another way to ignore GNG is by concentrating on the (irrelevant) failure to meet a bunch of other categories of notability. So what, if the subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL? She meets GNG. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:HouseOfChange: I suggest that you quit while you're ahead. The nominator did indeed mention that the article has been constructed by new editors, which is relevant if new folks are unaware of Wikipedia's long-standing policies. But even so, the entire discussion since then has been about notability, as it should be in a deletion discussion. You have given your opinion on Ms. Palmer's notability three different times, and your unfounded accusation of discrimination against newbies does not make Ms. Palmer more notable. Your opinion on that matter is here for all to see, thrice. Now let the consensus process play out. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:HouseOfChange: please don't assume the motivation for my nomination, still less criticise me for what you perceive it to be. FWIW, I am not "offended" by the "amateur editing" - if anything I am impressed by the apparently expert editing which I think has made the subject appear far more notable than she is. You accuse me of avoiding policy arguments but the deletion rationale addresses precisely the relevant policies and guidelines for inclusion, and in response to your initial comment I had clarified why I assert that the GNG is not met at all, again with reference to policy and guideline. If anything, your arguments do not address the concerns that the GNG is not met, just merely assert that it is, and resort to personal attacks, from which I conclude you have no reasoned response to give. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my inappropriate comments, Dorsetonian, and have edited the page to strike them out. My "reasoned response" has been to try to improve the article, removing puffery and adding information from WP:RS, hoping to be able to demonstrate my belief that she passes GNG. If you look at my userpage, you will see that I like to do article repair when I think it will help. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HouseOfChange - I appreciate that. Dorsetonian (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's certainly been some COI editing here, and a bunch of trivia/puffery is included (appearing on an episode of House Hunters is almost certainly not worth mentioning on any biography). The source [9] and the coverage of her other minor publicity events seems to be enough to pass GNG, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in news media like Chronicle-Telegram, Cleveland Scene & The Morning Journal Joaomufc (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by blocked sockpuppet struck out. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially PR, based on PR. This is an attempt to make a non-notable career sound important. The lede paragraph epitomizes the technique: "one of the Most Interesting People of 2016.[5]". (and it then turns out from the ref that "one of the" means one out of 30. Such a listing of people really means, one of the 30 people their publicists have most strongly pushed us to include" That amounts to an utterly trivial so-called award from a local paper. Similarly, one of the arguments for keep was "the coverage of her other minor publicity events seems to be enough to pass GNG," Coverage of trivial publicity events is not substantial coverage. Her claimed significant medical work has only 28 citations for its most cited paper. None of her films or recordings are notable. The argument for notability depends upon an uncritical misuse of the gNG, ignoring the requirements for the publications being significant and independent--the susceptibility of the GNG to such misuse is the key reason I think it's essentially worthless, because peopel can interpret those terms according to the result they want.

In any case, notability arguemnts are unnecesary here. This is pure promotional biography, and NOTPROMOTION is a basic part of policy, and requires deletion regardless of notability , just as does copyvio. I don't like to cut short a discussion with even a well-merited speedy, but this is really G11 territory. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOPROMO. Wikipedia is not a promotional platform period. Notability is a secondary issue. The article cannot be kept in its current condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The less famous a person is, the more suspicion that an article is promotional there will be. You could write two articles of random people using exactly the same types of sources, the same tone of voice, and everything, and the article about the less famous person will appear to be more promotional. Here, significant amounts of the article were written by sources close to the subject of the article. I understand that maybe the article contributors were not deliberately attempting to be promotional, but evertheless this article fails WP:Promotional in tone and in content and so should be deleted. Wikipedia is not an original platform for promotion: it can reflect notability, but it cannot be the source of original promotion. Egroeg5 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve Currently, the article is indeed promotional and needs some serious rewriting, but the subject is notable enough and does merit a wikipedia page. Goharshady (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Strikerforce^Talk 15:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Currently, discussion seems to be focusing on:

Does the subject of the article fail WP:Notability and WP:MUSICBIO?
Does the article fail WP:Promotional?

If the article fails either criteria, then the article is eligible for deletion.

I am not going to comment on WP:Notability, even though I personally find it doubtful that the subject is sufficiently notable.

That said, it is very clear that the article fails WP:Promotional. In fact, the article so fails the second criteria that, quoting from DGG above, this is really G11 Speedy Deletion territory.

To those who suggest that we rewrite or improve the article, the problem is that the subject is not very notable and it would be very difficult to rewrite the article in a less promotional way. In fact, take out the promotion, and it becomes doubtful that she is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Again quoting DGG above, this is "an attempt to make a non-notable career sound important." Maybe she has just enough notability for Wikipedia, but I think a fresh start-over of the article (deletion) is the best option, until the subject becomes more notable. Egroeg5 (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROMO \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to draftspace There is a conflict of interest going on, failing WP:AB as well as WP:PROMO as stated above. Perhaps if it was moved to draftspace, the article could be sufficiently reworked, and after which if the editors could prove notability, they could go to WP:PR before moving it to mainspace. But as of now, it should not be in mainspace. Henry ^TALK 16:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this idea from HenryMP02 is good. I am not one of the original article creators, but I have plenty of room in my sandbox for the draft so far. If more WP:RS cover the activities of this very energetic person, then it will be a shame to lose the work others have done so far on the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2018 (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. All "keep" opinions are by very new and/or low-editcount accounts or IPs, a sign of sockpuppetry or canvassing. Sandstein 06:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Karter

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC - the subject has only received substantial coverage in student newspapers and is (seemingly) unsigned. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Upon Review, Article is Valid and does not Violate WP:NMUSIC Hey SmartSE, upon review of the criteria, this is a valid article, which does not fail WP:NMUSIC

WP:NMUSIC outlines several core grounds upon which credibility may be established–

“Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself” which it has, with multiple of the sources being recognized as credible and notable by wikipedia itself."

For WP:NMUSIC notability, subjects are required to satisfy only ONE of the delineated criteria, while this article satisfies multiple: namely: #1, #10, and #12, as this artist has been covered on nationally broadcasted syndicate television.

It is also important for to note that record label signing is not a requirement for notability. 128.220.159.56 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 128.220.159.56 (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After looking over WP:NMUSIC, I agree with 128.220.159.56 that this article meets multiple requirements for notability and doesn't fail WP:NMUSIC.

WP:NMUSIC criteria #1 requires "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." – While The Johns Hopkins source is the only source which is arguably not independent of the musician itself, the article meets this requirement with verified publication by Harvard, Cornell, and a documented appearance on national television.
WP:NMUSIC Criteria #10 provides notability for having performed music appearing in notable media, or "performance in a television show or notable film" – the artist is documented appearing on national television, performing a written song in an interview.
Likewise, WP:NMUSIC Criteria #12 gives notability if the subject "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." – The subject is documented being interviewed and performing on national television.
In response to SmartSE – WP:NMUSIC does not at any point indicate that notability is contingent upon record label association, nor does it indicate that the sources used in this article are of any less merit. It only requires notable publication, and all of the sources used in this article seem to be recognized by wikipedia.
Finally, WP:NMUSIC only requires at the miniumum one of its criteria to be met to establish notability– the article in question clearly meets three at least.

2600:1003:B006:74BA:6418:544D:FDDD:E7E2 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, and report author for undisclosed COI - Massive undisclosed WP:COI on author Andrewkazimi for being a huge fan and probably knowing the guy. Hey, SmartSE, maybe homework first next time? How hard is it to google the author and subject together? https://ar-new.com/online/travis-karter-ice-official-music-video-0yDZTyn8Xho.html Seafox289 (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is inkeeping with Wikipedia standard article guidelines, and does not fail WP:COI

Hello Seafox289,

WP:COI violations constitute “contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.”

I am in no way related to the subject, nor do I have any personal or acquaintance relationship with the subject whatsoever.

Furthermore, the article was written entirely in objective, academic language, utilizing information gathered from various credible, noted, and Wikipedia recognized sources, and is entirely inkeeping with all of Wikipedia’s rules and regulations.

This does not qualify as a COI.

Andrewkazimi (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seafox289, I am not sure about this one– but what I can say after reviewing WP:COI is that it specifically defines what constitutes a conflict of interest. Nowhere does it say that being a "fan" constitutes a conflict of interest. After looking through the wiki articles of multiple other "Artists of note", and googling the names of contributors, I find that it is quite common to find that the contributors of artists' articles are also fans of that artist's music. I also looked at the wiki pages of several sports teams and found the same. The article in question is written objectively, and does not at any point seem to me to indicate a conflict of interest. 2600:1003:B006:74BA:6418:544D:FDDD:E7E2 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article meets Wikipedia's guidelines In Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion Wikipedia’s guidelines identify “three cardinal criteria” an article must meet for validity. These are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research I looked at the respective criteria for all three, and this article meets all three.

Information presented is well cited and verifiable
Sources are independently written
Throughout the article, the writing maintains a Neutral point of view.

I also looked at what other people are saying in regards to COI and WP:NMUSIC. After watching the subject's televised interview with Smile Jamaica, it is unquestionable that the article definitely meets at least criteria 12 of WP:NMUSIC , which only requires at least one criteria to be met. In regards to WP:COI, this article does not violate COI by definition, and also I looked myself, and I couldn’t find any provable tangible connection between the author and the subject.

This article follows the three cardinal policies, and does not violate COI nor WP:NMUSIC and is not subject for deletion 68.33.93.136 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read this article, all of the rules in Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion, and also the pages for WP:NMUSIC and WP:COI, and I vote keep for the following reasons.

I agree with the earlier contributors that this article meets the rules for WP:NMUSIC, because it shows multiple credible, independent sources. SmartSE questions the sources because some of them are university newsspapers, but even without the newspapers, the article also features the subject being interviewed on national television. This explicitly meets Criteria #12 of WP:NMUSIC. It seems there was also a performance of both live and recorded music in that television segment, which meets both #12 and #10.
considering the views of the other contributors, I also don't think this is a COI. User Seafox289 suggested a "probable" COI, but so far there is no proof that there is any real relationship between the author and the subject. An earlier contributor made a good point that it is pretty common for people that are "fans" of something to edit its wikipedia page, so i don't think this counts as a COI. The article is written objectively, and follows wikipedias guidelines of verifiability and objectivity, and after reading the wikipedia pages of several other notable musicians, I don't see this article's language as seeming any different or more partial than the others.

63.139.44.18 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this article through the "random article algorithm" and noticed that it had a deletion entry. At first I agreed with SmartSE because it seemed sources were mostly from college newspapers. I googled "Travis Karter" to see if i could find any other recent, credible sources, and I found an article published by popular music blog Trapstyle. I searched "Trapstyle" on wikipedia, and saw that this same source has also been used as a credible source in the article's of several other artists and musicians. I added the citation to the official page and then came here to comment, but now that i've read all the other comments from other users, I also agree that according to WP:NMUSIC the national TV interview that is documented in the article is enough to satisfy the #12criteria. However, now with the additional credible article, the subject also satisfies #1 as well. I am in agreemenet with other contributors that this article is a keep because it is objective, verifiable, and satisfies #1, #10, and #12 of WP:NMUSIC Claire Simmons46 (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input by established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Summary of arguments With this article now relisted, and the discussion expanded, I'll summarize the arguments against the deletion of this article, and for it being kept.

Initially, User SmartSE suggested this article fails WP:NMUSIC, however, that proposal has been undermined, as the article clearly meets both Criteria #10 and #12 of WP:NMUSIC due to the subject's significant coverage on national broadcast television.
SmartSE questioned the sources due to some being college newspapers, however, with the additional source found by user Claire Simmons46, the page also now entirely meets #1 as well, as the new source comes from "Trapstyle," a reputable music publication that has been previously recognized and accepted by Wikipedia in several other articles.
It is important to note as well that WP:NMUSIC does not unequivocally ban the use of university newspapers as sources. It specifically says "in most cases" – The sources in question come from Harvard University and Cornell University – two of the most reputable university publications in the entire country, which, resultantly may be assigned higher credibility than the average university publication
In response to User Seafox289 suggesting a potential WP:COI, once again I restate: I have no significant personal, or even acquaintance relationship with the subject. All the information I gathered was entirely from the sources, which I was careful to cite at each turn. There is no unsourced information in the Wiki, and it is entirely written objectively, academically, and in-keeping with Wikipedia's three cardinal criteria, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewkazimi (talk • contribs) 04:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. The main references I see that are about him are in college newspapers (or college-student blogs [10]); I'm unconvinced of their independence from the source. I vehemently disagree that a TV interview with the participant while they were in middle school on Smile Jamaica meets WP:NMUSIC#12. The remaining source, Trapstyle, is an "artist-operated music blog". I'm confident that, per WP:SPIP concerns, the general notability guideline is not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Keep:~~ Addressing power~enwiki WP:NMUSIC Criteria #12 specifies exactly that the subject "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." Could you please specify exactly how this substantial coverage on national television fails to meet Criteria #12? Furthermore, your mention of the subject's age seems to be entirely irrelevant, as nowhere in WP:NMUSIC does it indicate a statute of limitations of the sources provided. The source is an officially aired interview on national television, and fully meets Criteria #12 of WP:NMUSIC. In regard to your statements on the sources, as I've looked into it, all sources except potentially the source published by the Hopkins news-letter are entirely independent of the subject, but, even without the Hopkins news-letter, the subject has been covered by multiple independent sources. I was not the one who found the Trapstyle source, but after looking into it, I notice as indicated by Claire Simmons46 it has been referenced multiple times in other Wikipedia articles, clearly indicating its solidity as a source, so for it to be questioned here almost seems a tad subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewkazimi (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have the time or energy to deal with your rules-lawyering. The closing admin can watch the clip and dismiss it as not relevant to notability without further argument needed on my part. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - power~enwiki, If you are unable to answer any of my questions, I understand, however there is a clear difference between “rules-lawyering” and pointing out that you are attempting to enforce regulations that simply do not exist, and arbitrarily interpreting the ones that do. I ask that you maintain respectful tone, and be specific if you are going to suggest a violation. (continued)

- - Every potential charge of violation brought against this article has been responded to without any subsequent rebuttal from the original posters who suggested the violation. I have created and contributed to several articles as an editor, and will continue to do so– I have no particular vested interest in this particular article, nor the subject himself, but what I do find a tad perturbing is the repeated attempts to exercise arbitrary requirements, seemingly fabricated at the discretion of the contributing user. (continued)

- - If Wikipedia identifies criteria and guidelines by which an article must adhere, and the article adheres to those guidelines, then the exercise of arbitrary rulings leveraging caveats that are written nowhere in those guidelines seems subjective at best. Specifically: WP:NMUSIC requires one criteria to be met at least. #12 grants notability in the event of significant, nationally broadcasted television coverage. Nowhere does it mention disqualification based on any of the objections [[[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] has voiced, and to attempt to discredit the article based on fabricated requirements is entirely subjective and arbitrary. I further assert that this article satisfies #10 and ~~#5:~~ #1 as well. Furthermore, to solely "vehemently" suggest that sources are not independent, yet fail to indicate reasoning behind this charge, and to refuse to do so when asked, also seems arbitrary and subjective. (continued)

- - To the closing admin, I ask that you please analyze objectively, regardless of your final decision.

- - This is my final contribution as original author.

Andrewkazimi (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found additional national publication initially i was ambivalent to the overall debate, but i was able to find an additional, recent source from a national publication. I included it in the works cited of the article. I would vote to keep, as this article now sufficiently satisfies #1 of WP:NMUSIC

Scholarmaking (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2018 (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. On the strength of the delete arguments and discounting !votes from the creator that appears to have a COI and an obvious sockpuppet (not necessarily the creators, but look at the contrib history...) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Wendell Jones

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

I'm unable to find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC do not appear to be met. SmartSE (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person has notability from Military history. Some things are available through Stars and Stripes, another military paper that I have a copy off and other info are listed in military records. There is a press released but from my understanding you don't accept those. I had spoken to an admin earlier when first writing the article asking what was needed and for them to look at it to make sure it was OK and was told everything was fine Livinginthepink (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets Wikipedia's guidelines In Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion Wikipedia’s guidelines identify “three cardinal criteria” an article must meet for validity. These are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research I looked at the respective criteria for all three, and this article meets all three.

Information presented is well cited and verifiable

Sources are independently written

Throughout the article, the writing maintains a Neutral point of view.

According to WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

These sources are indeed "reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I argue that the coverage of Kevin Wendell Jones in these sources is more than "trivial," and thus this entry meets the criteria that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this is not a dictionary entry; "neutrality" does not mean avoiding controversial topics, but rather, writing about them in such a way that viewpoints are properly attributed to those who advance them.

Per WP:BASIC, he is notable. Notability isn't determined by sources in the article, but by coverage in existing sources.

Passes WP:NMUSIC and has reliable sources coverage. criteria #1 requires "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." – While The Stars and Stripes and The Community Bridge is the only source which is independent of the musician itself, the article meets this requirement with verified publication by US Military. Livinginthepink (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would give benefit of the doubt based on very "matter of fact" article. I don't see promotional here. Seafox289 (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither of the keep votes discuss notability. There are 14 sources in the article - six are film award listings (or I think: a couple are behind paywalls), one is his allmusic site: not independent, two or three are military newsletters discussing how he won a couple competitions, and the others are public records searches or about other people. A quick search brought up very little about him I could find, though he does have a very common name - but it doesn't appear WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC are met based on what's easily available, which is a problem. SportingFlyer talk 13:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For over 25 years The annual U.S. Army Battle of the Bands contest have acts from all over Europe come to showcase their talent qualifying for the All-Army Battle of the Bands and to Stars of Tomorrow contests that is held stateside at Fort Belvoir, Va. While the coverage are not enough to establish WP:N because none of them discusses Kevin Wendell Jones directly and in detail, as require by WP:GNG but there are multiple articles that exist including coverage done by American Forces Network (AFN). Unfortunately the Stars and Stripes article that is in more detail was before World Wide Web and though the quality source don't discusses the subject in-depth however The event was covered by Stars and Stripes and the American Forces Network (AFN). I think the subject still passes our WP:N because in 1988, he and band members was recognized by the VII Corps with a prestigious award or honor so having said that the subject passes criteria # 1 of WP:ANYBIO. Livinginthepink (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:08, 24 June 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie West

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no reliable source referencing being shown. The strongest discernible notability claim here is that he and his music exist, which does not automatically guarantee a Wikipedia article in and of itself absent passage of an NMUSIC criterion -- and the referencing here is to WP:BLOGS, his own self-published website, a Spotify stream and YouTube videos, not to reliable source media coverage that counts as valid support for notability. Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Any independent coverage of Mr. West is WP:ONEEVENT related to him winning a busking competition nine years ago [11], and there has been nothing since then. The rest of the article is self-promotional and citing only Mr. West's own social media. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For exactly the reasons that Nom and Richard3120 lay out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nauman Ahmed

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:MUSICBIO and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources thus fails to meet basic GNG. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria. samee converse 10:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable yet, so delete for now. M A A Z T A L K 04:43, 17 June 2018 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prinye Jaja

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

I declined an A7 request because based on what I can find on GNews ([12] [13]), I cannot rule out her being significant or important enough to pass A7, like due to her association with MC Galaxy, especially considering that Nigerian sources are likely harder to find for Westeners like myself.

However, I did look for sources and except the two I mentioned, I could not find any, so she fails WP:NARTIST, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO/WP:GNG. I briefly considered merging to Jaja of Opobo but I did not see the point since the connection is weak at best. Regards So Why 09:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per norm. She fails WP:NARTIST and WP:BASIC. Merging with Jaja of Opobo is not advised, apart from mention from [14] about being related to Jaja of Okpobo there's nothing or any source from GBOOKS dating back to time of Jaja that can also support that, usually in cases like this i use GBOOKS and there should be a few mentions but nothing of such in this case. Edidiong (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly too soon for her own WP article. In addition to the sources found by the previous editors in this debate, I also found this rather shallow interview: [15]. She has gotten some media coverage, most likely due to her notable relative, but her music has not yet been noticed beyond the usual self-promotional and MP3/streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DOOMSDAYER520. Stanleytux (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to retain the disambiguation page as is. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro Tull

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

WP:2DAB. Should be deleted and Jethro Tull (band) moved here, as that's the primary target. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a disambiguation page with only 2 subjects that should instead be a hatnote. Agree that Jethro Tull (band) should be the redirect, since a vast majority of users would likely be searching for the band rather than the person. Nanophosis (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 03:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 03:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: one current band, one significant historical person, both disambiguated, no primary topic. Perfectly correct dab page, as it was when created in 2002. PamD 10:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: isn't this a move request rather than an AfD? Richard3120 (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that DAB pages have to be AFD'd. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my understanding of this is to build consensus that the band is the primary topic. I disagree. I had never heard of the agriculturalist (and I've only heard of the band enough to be surprised to find it in the list of AfDs), but he appears to be a substantial historical figure, and the disambiguation page seems proper to me. SportingFlyer talk 16:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DAB As-Is -- The disambiguation page could be eliminated if there was a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name, but I don't think that is the case here. Scientists and historians may enter "Jethro Tull" to find the agriculturalist, music fans may use the term to search for the band. Since the agriculturalist is clearly a notable historical figure, he may be just as "primary" as the famous band. The brief detour through the disambig page when someone searches for the name is a bit annoying but easily clicked through. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If one of the topics was clearly the primary one, it would be the agriculturalist of the 18th century. I think I may have heard of him a little in the past, the band not at all. We should avoid unwaranted presentism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don think either could be argued to be the primary topic as both are very notable in their fields (although the fact that the band took their name from the historical figure, might suggest he is the primary subject I suppose). Equally, I suspect different audiences will enter the term expecting different results so a disambiguation page is helpful. Dunarc (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The agriculturalist is just as famous as the band. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band - Have hatnote on both pages. Maybe the band hatnote could say "Named after" (not sure about style guidelines on this). Band popularity is about an order of magnitude higher (6x-50x). Google Trends show notability is to the band.[16] NGram shows mentions for the agriculturist disappeared until the band appeared in 1967.[17] Pageviews are about 8x for the band.[18] Suggested search on WP for "Jethro Tul" (missing final "l") has first the band, then agriculturist, discography, The String Quartet, DAB, Slipstream (band video), Christmas album, A (band album). StrayBolt (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD (talk · contribs) and others above. Note that this has already been proposed and rejected as a move request a few months ago: see here. --Deskford (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as such a request should be made via the RM process. feminist (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subzero Records

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

This record label does not substantial coverage in independent reliable sources for notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not one single independent source in the article as stands, so I went looking. Nada. Nothin'. A label solely distributed by CD Baby is never a good sign. No notable artists. No indication of any influence of significant within any genre or cultural subset. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Appears to be purely a label set up by two people to release their own records (Paz is D.J. Joker, Burnett is D. Burn$) and those of acquaintances from San Diego, none of whom are notable. The label's website is dead so I assume that the company has ceased to exist. Richard3120 (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage, PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Cunning

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

Autobiographical article about someone who has received no nontrivial coverage in independent sources, as I fail to see how the sources presented in the previous AfD constitute significant coverage. Fails the relevant notability guidelines (GNG, NMUSIC). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. I guess this article passed the last AfD back in 2009 because back then the criteria was simply "can find mentions on the internet by Googling". But the three sources are of dubious reliability, and even if they are allowed, they're not exactly in-depth: the Resident Advisor ones consist of a press release for the launch of his record label, and a short Q&A between Cunning and one of the acts on his label (the link in the article is dead, but it's archived here [19]), asking such profound questions as "what dance would you use to cure the world's evils?" 2009 was just about as famous as Cunning got: at the end of that year his show on Kiss FM finished and he now broadcasts a show on local internet radio station Kool London and runs his own DJing school, but that's about it. The article name drops famous acts played on the Kiss FM show who aren't really linked to Mr. Cunning at all, while the acts on his record labels and the labels themselves are non-notable (Rico Tubbs is a blue link but understandably redirects to the Miami Vice character). Wikipedia has deleted DJs a lot more famous than this one. Richard3120 (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails — Preceding unsigned comment added by NANExcella (talk • contribs) 09:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiff No Beat

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

No references to show notability, promotional language. Delete, or draftify if there is a chance to salvage. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the claims of notability are sourced, and this seems to fairly clearly be COI editing by the article's creator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If deleted, delete La Vie de Louga (Kiff No Beat song) & Approchez Regardez (Kiff No Beat song) per WP:A9 — IVORK _Discuss 05:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feature (band)

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

Non-notable broken up band, Fails WP:BAND Polyamorph (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has multiple reliable sources coverage such as Quitus, Clash magazine, The Skinny and Allmusic so passes WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sources seem a bit promotonal to me. 1 LP and a couple of EPs. I don't see how they satisfy WP:BAND. Polyamorph (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage and all sources are reliable music press, agree that it passes WP:NMUSIC/WP:BAND/WP:GNG. All are reviews, apart from perhaps one which is a premiere, so don't agree that they are promotional, it's just favourable coverage. Lewishhh (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient qualitative sources. Agree they are reliable and non-promotional, passes passes WP:NMUSIC. Yealdgate (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saichon Radomkit

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

Contested prod without rationale or improvement. No indication he, or his band, was notable. And searches did not turn up the in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG, and nothing indicates he passes WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. It is possible that non-English sources exist but I was unable to find any using Google Translate and the Thai Wikipedia didn't provide any either. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was lead vocal of one of the top band in Thailand 40 years ago. So online references will be hard to find. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The band is notable, but whether his post-Innocent career is significant enough to warrant a standalone article seems more borderline. There's this 2015 interview in Naewna (dead link[20], but mirrored here), but I couldn't find much recent coverage that wasn't about the band's reunion concert. In any case, if we had an article for the band this could be redirected there. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I am reluctant to say that he is totally non-notable as an individual performer because there may be Thai sources that I cannot find and/or translate. But here are some recent Thai media sources in English: [21], [22], [23] -- indicating that the gentleman is now a nostalgia performer representing his 80's band. He would be eligible for a redirect that band's article if there was one. Otherwise, we need Thai experts to track down reliable sources for his other work. He may be accomplished and respected in his country but we need reliable sources for verification. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:15, 22 June 2018 (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 List of BNK48 members. Sandstein 07:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pimrapat Phadungwatanachok

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

Delete (or Redirect to List of BNK48 members) as the subject of the article does not likely pass WP:BIO/WP:MUSICBIO. --Miwako Sato (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WithoonS: Please do not delete this page, I created it to collect her personal information and actings for her fans which the article "List of BNK48 members" do not have it. This idol girl group is difference with general band, the most fans focus on individual member to follow and not the whole band. So, I think this article is useful for the fans, thank you and kindly consider to accept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WithoonS (talk • contribs) 14:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the coverage is decent. Dailynews [24], Judprakai section of Krungthep Thurakij [25], Praew [26], Campus Star [27], True Plookpanya [28], The Standard [29] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BNK48 or List of BNK48 members. Unless she has achieved significant overage for activities outside of the band (joined a different band, has solo releases, independent work in other media, etc.), then band members are usually directed per WP:NBAND - (members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo release). The article needs to demonstrate that she has achieve things outside of the band to warrant a standalone article. Hzh (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The New Age Idols

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

No notability. The subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:MBIO. There is a lack in significant coverage of reliable sources. The editor whose username is Z0 19:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MBIO, and all the sources currently on the page are either user-generated content, unreliable, or otherwise trivial. Nanophosis (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - New band seeking promotion, with the only coverage being in trivial or self-generated song listings and the like. I could be cruel by citing WP:GARAGEBAND or friendly with WP:TOOSOON. Good luck to them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be nice if the subject of a WP:MUSIC article actually accomplished something before attempting to claim wikipedia notability. Obviously promotional and WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting citing NME as a source can be confusing; they offer a service called "Artist Services" which allow a member to create and download to their website their own press, where it can easily be confused for coverage by a major, reliable source. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2018 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desirée Dawson

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

Appears to not have enough significant coverage from reliable sources to satisfy WP:NMUSIC; current coverage is insufficient and the remaining sources only discuss the subject in mere mentions. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:4405:EFCC:6A6D:494F (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh 666 22:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There actually are other sources that can be added, and CBC Music's Searchlight is a contest that can reasonably constitute a pass of NMUSIC #9 as long as the sourcing is there to cover it off (which it is here). I'll take a stab at improving the article in the next day or two. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although maybe a weak keep. Contest winner with CBC Music so barely meets MUSIBIO No. 9. Appears nom didn't do WP:BEFORE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NMUSIC and has reliable sources coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aly-Us

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

Non-notable musical group with lack of independent reliable coverage. Only passing mentions in sources. Tinton5 (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that it should be deleted. It is a true classic of the house-music genre. Added more citations re NPR, moby. If you google "the best classic house" and the track you get lots of hits.

This is a niche genre. Heavily African American. Also LGBT.

Ps - song has nearly 7m youtube views. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhdshoes2 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed misplaced comment. @Bdshoes2:: New votes go at the bottom of the nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄)

Tagging @Alansohn for his Jersey-centric viewpoint.Bhdshoes2 (talk)

Weak Support - Notability seems not too good, does not really meet WP:BAND, however, it is debatable. Wpgbrown ^{talk | contribs} 19:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep had a high charting release on a Billboard chart and has reliable sources coverage such as NPR and Allmusic, passes WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some sources in article are not indepedent; others indicate notability but not significant coverage. Search finds sources that could be added that would be enough for a short article such as this. "Follow Me" charted in the UK twice, both times outside the top 40 but in the top 75. Peter James (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The sources found by the previous voters must be added to the article to make it more viable. Those sources indicate that this group had one big song that charted in US and UK, which in turn generated a little media notice at the time and some more recent "lost classic"-style nostalgia. Should be enough for a presentable stub article, but it needs to be cleaned up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Momm

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

I do not believe that this individual meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A Google search does not return significant coverage independent of the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because Internet is changing over and over again and so the informations that you cannot retrieve anymore. The days of fame for OM are gone. You guys should learn about what Internet is and how it works. But hey, i support this deletion, so there's more for me to put it to the Music Wiki ;) --2003:C7:9BD0:2D00:C69:7383:A131:A286 (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, so if sources exist that are no longer available, it would be useful to know about them to see if anyone can track them down in an internet archive. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage by reliable sources, appears to fail GNG. Strikerforce^Talk 16:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - search of (including behind some paywalls) turned up nothing except the briefest of passing mentions. Fails NMUSIC and GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:45, 27 June 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bimini Brothers

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

Not notable, seems to have a bit [30] of coverage in the local and specialized press. Otherwise just seems to be a WP:MILL band which fails notability criteria in WP:NMUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per norminator. Edidiong (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:23, 11 June 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Britton Buchanan

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Reality tv runner up... no sourcing to show he meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BLP1E. May be justified once other content is added. It's a work in progress. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you do understand that BLP1E is a rationale for deletion, not keeping. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no other commentary required. Bleucheeses (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And no rationale for keeping given. Just saying. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails BLP1E, no evidence this runner-up can pass the GNG otherwise. No valid Keep rationale given. No other commentary required. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Lots of tongue in cheek "no commentary required" ivotes, but to get serious: this is WP:BLP1E and should fail based on that and yet a simple google reveals coverage in legit independent sources such as Rolling Stone, Parade Magazine, People, Carson Daly, etc. indicate that although his initial fame was the result of reality television, he has gotten the necessary attention beyond that to squeak through WP:GNG. Problem is this article has zero sourcing and really needs re-written to be kept, but the subject itself passes. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G.a.s. Drummers

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. No evidence of major releases on major labels or extensive coverage. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was the best (only) piece of coverage that I could find, and their link to BCore Disc doesn't help much either (since that label doesn't appear particularly notable). It looks like these guys are slightly ahead of WP:WHYNOGARAGE, as they've clearly toured and released their music, but I still think they fail the guidelines for inclusion at WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 07:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NBAND. I really tried to find information about this band, who are definitely still active, but nothing indicates that they pass the notability guidelines. The article was created in 2006 by a SPA who clearly knew the band well, and has barely been touched since then, save for a brief update in 2011 by an IP based in the Cadiz province where the band is from. Since 2006, the band has released two more studio albums, a compilation album of B-sides and previously unreleased material, and their most recent release was a live album in 2016, recorded in 2013. Their two most recent albums are only available digitally through their own Bandcamp website, bar a limited edition of 500 vinyl LPs released via a small independent label based in Granada in southern Spain. I don't believe this website is an RS [31], but I looked at the list of concerts at the bottom of the article, which are all local to southern Spain and include two small festivals in 2017 where the band was at the bottom of the bill [32], [33] (note that for the former festival, G.A.S. Drummers' lead singer was also the organiser of the terrace party). There's another non-noteworthy festival here from 2015 where they were again the opening act [34]. They toured Canada last year, but as the third-on-the-bill opening act to Propagandhi and Iron Chic. The venue where their 2016 live album was recorded is in Cadiz and has a capacity of 200 people. I know hardcore punk isn't the type of genre to appeal to the mainstream and sell out stadia worldwide, but if after nearly two decades of activity you're only playing to 200 people in your home province, and you are bottom of the bill at non-notable festivals in your home county, that isn't a good indication that you pass WP:NBAND. I think the only thing that could save this article is an editor who is a fan of this music and knows where to find reliable sources about this genre. Richard3120 (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2018 (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I am invoking NOTAVOTE here. While the Keep !votes are more numerical I am unimpressed by the WP:PAG basis of their arguments. That said there is only one comment supporting deletion and that is not enough to establish consensus even in the face of the rather weak Keep arguments. After three relists it's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masao Akashi

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

As the article creator said on creation, there is only one source (in Japanese). Now there are a couple more, but none, including the Japanese one, pass WP:RS. Arrangers are rarely notable, and there's no evidence of non-trivial coverage of this one. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources doesn't pass WP:RS? Which one is reliable? What other informations you need in order to keep this page alive? Thank you!

(Qucipuci0)

Keep This page could prove useful to listeners of Japanese music and the references are decently diverse. ₪RicknAsia₪ 09:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL. The issue is sourcing, not whether it's interesting or not. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Rickinasia user said, for such main reason I created an article about Masao Akashi. I didn't include information in bio more than what's available and verifiable. Instead, I made list of involved artist bigger because that's where I have more confidence with. --- (Qucipuci0)

Keep. Played bass for B'z and arranged or produced for many extremely notable bands. As an aside, this might be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Category:Japanese music arrangers, Category:American music arrangers, etc. seem to indicate that arrangers are often notable. Dekimasuよ! 19:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What other source I must add for this page being kept and not be anymore in list of deleted? So far I add sources are all what I asked from my japanese friends. --- (Qucipuci0)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlike composers, music arrangers are usually not notable. There are surely exceptions, but don't think this is one of them. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Masao Akashi formed his own band under name "Masao Akashi Band"(MAB ref. from onwards) and was active in years 1996-1998. Here is proof.

http://web.archive.org/web/20001120215900/http://www.jin.ne.jp:80/jack3/disco3.htm --- here is his profile http://web.archive.org/web/20001120215900/http://www.blue-z.co.jp/Akashi.html under discography list you can see "MAB profile". they were signed under indies label blue-z records. and here is official profile from "MAB" profile http://web.archive.org/web/19991014020221/http://www.wao.or.jp:80/user/kirimura/AMG/akashi.html

This informations was available but I didn't have any source of it so I didnt include it earlier.

Stefka probably doesnt know how difficult is to obtain old informations in Japanese. I better speak out once situation is known instead of saying false statements. He's very popular in Japan. I also included on profile television appearance, i was lucky to find footage on net. Information if he made another appearance is difficult.

---(Qucipuci0)

You continue to make arguments for deletion. The fact that it is difficult to find sources is an explanatio nf or why there are no sources to establish notability, not a reason for ignoring that fact. WP:POPULAR is likewise not a reason for keeping. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 28 June 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lorong Boys

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

The musicians discussed in this article do not meet the criteria for notability in music as outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines. All reliable source coverage listed is local. WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO criteria are not met. The article is biased, it is written as though it were trying to advertise for or promote the musicians discussed within. The musicians themselves have no strong claim and very little regional/international renown. InspectorMikeChin (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing against such "local" coverage in the guidelines, given that coverage of the quintet is national - [35][36][37]. Coverage of individual members of the quintet - [38][39][40][41]. Should qualify under WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close/Keep All - For all recent AfDs by this nominator. See comments by myself and others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HubbaBubbas. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BAND 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. To avoid confusion WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BAND are shortcuts to the same notability criteria. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Hzh has identified multiple significant coverage in reliable sources including at the national level that shows that the band passes WP:NMUSIC as well as WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Steve McQueens

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

The musicians discussed in this article do not meet the criteria for notability in music as outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines. All reliable source coverage listed is local. WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO criteria are not met. The article is biased, it is written as though it were trying to advertise for or promote the musicians discussed within. The musicians themselves have no strong claim and very little regional/international renown. InspectorMikeChin (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has nominated a few articles based on a false understanding of the guidelines. Local coverage does not preclude a band being notable, and they are covered in national newspaper like The Straits Times - [42][43]. They argument that coverage of the band is only local is in any case clearly false, as they have in fact being covered outside Singapore - [44][45][46]. Please note that it is necessary to perform a check for sources first before nominating an article for deletion per WP:BEFORE. Hzh (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close/Keep All - For all recent AfDs by this nominator. See comments by myself and others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HubbaBubbas. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Irrespective of the nominator's record in AfDs, of which I'm not aware, the text of the article is/was full of promotional verbiage. I tried to somewhat salvage it. -The Gnome (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Hzh has identified significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Strait Times which shows the subject passes WP:NMUSIC as well as WP:GNG and the Gnome has removed the promotional content, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HubbaBubbas

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

The musicians discussed in this article do not meet the criteria for notability in music as outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines. All reliable source coverage listed is local. WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO criteria are not met. The article is biased, it is written as though it were trying to advertise for or promote the musicians discussed within. The musicians themselves have no strong claim and very little regional/international renown if at all. InspectorMikeChin (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles were initially listed in this discussion, and some, but not all have been later nominated separately. Some of these articles have not been renominated, and the nominator has implied withdrawal per their removal of content on this page in this edit. At this time, this discussion only pertains to the HubbaBubbas article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am also nominating the following pages because the musicians/bands discussed therein likewise cannot be considered notable, for the same reason as the aforementioned. In addition, some of these articles are stubs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural close. Per Squeamish Ossifrage's prior comments [47]; the bundling here is inappropriate, as the only thing that's evidently in common among these subjects is Singapore. And the nominator's removal of Squeamish's comments [48] violates WP:TPO. If the nominator wants to nominate these separately the first step is to close this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this and recommend a temp topic ban for whoever deleted that comment. Someone who deletes other comments at AFD is unstable.Egaoblai (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is the restored content that the nominator removed from this page in this edit (see Revision history for more information). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. These are the worst kind of bundled nominations. Most of these entries are not directly related, other than thematically (as Singaporean musicians). So this omnibus AFD requires us to search for potential missed sources for a whole slate of different subjects. On top of that, there's a real possibility that some of these musicians will be better represented in Chinese-language media than in immediately obvious English-language sources. And make no mistake, I'm fairly sure that there is at least one notable subject here. The Sam Willows have quite a bit of media coverage; now, some of that is quasi-independent sources that include interviews, but this is a bylined article about the band (and their then-new album) from The Jakarta Post. This is one of those articles that contains an interview, but is not exclusively an interview; whether or not it is an appropriate source is somewhat secondary to the fact that it's a Singaporean media outlet describing the band as "arguably Singapore's most popular band". And so forth. Needless to say, there are a LOT of sources available. And that makes me think that WP:BEFORE wasn't done on everything in this list, either. I'm sure this was all well-intentioned, but these omnibus AFDs are almost always trainwrecks unless they have a very narrow, clearly-defined scope. This doesn't. I'm not saying all of these articles should be retained. I don't know. But let's not try to figure that out this way? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have removed the Sam Willows case from above, and I will make the necessary edits so that they will be as separate nominations rather than related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InspectorMikeChin (talk • contribs) 04:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is nominating articles based on a false understanding of the guidelines given that local coverage does not preclude a band being notable. Some of the nominations also appear to be indiscriminate. The coverage in any case is national and significant - [49][50][51] and would qualify under WP:BAND. Hzh (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close/Keep All - As recommended elsewhere by User:Arxiloxos and others, I support a quick close of all recent AfDs by User:InspectorMikeChin due to incorrect procedures and misunderstanding of notability guidelines. This includes the following: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lorong_Boys, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Steve_McQueens, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gentle_Bones, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shigga_Shay, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orchestra_of_the_Music_Makers, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HubbaBubbas. Later, each can be inspected for notability if desired by other editors. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In response to Hzh, the coverage does not qualify under WP:BAND on several accounts, if you check the WP:BAND section, the qualifying conditions include the following which the nominated article does not qualify: (3) Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. (6) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a WP:CIRCULAR manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.) (8) Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Based on what is written in the nominated article, the musician(s) discussed within do not seem to qualify for the above three clauses for notability. Please feel free to correct if I am wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by DouglasRosieFan10 (talk • contribs)

This editor has only made four edits, all at this AFD Atlantic306 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by meeting (generally speaking) at least one of the criteria at WP:BAND; a musician need not meet them all to be notable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified by Hzh which enable a pass of criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed and it probably passes other criteria as well) and passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burning the Masses

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

non notable band. only one source on the whole page, and also it’s a A7 Redundant article because they already have a place on metal archives which is more comprehensively put together. Googling their band name also doesn't turn up any significant media coverage. Second Skin (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In this and another recent nomination, it appears that User:Second Skin is citing guideline #A7 incorrectly. That guideline does not contain the term "redundant" but does mention that certain types of articles can be "speedy deleted" if they make no claim of notability. Also, already having an article at a different website is irrelevant. The most relevant guideline to discuss in this type of nomination is WP:NBAND and associated guidelines. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that it was a criteria solely for "speedy deletions", but as a guideline for anything regarding non-notable music articles. Forgive me Second Skin (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - One of their albums has a fairly substantial review at AllMusic ([52]]), and they have been covered at the reasonably reliable No Clean Singing webzine ([53], [54]). Other voters may find this to be enough for a basic stub article, but I am concerned about their lack of coverage elsewhere beyond basic song listings at MP3/streaming sites and social media posts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Webzines aren't noteworthy sources. Allmusic is notable, but that's a single review and not even a source from a noteworthy publication like Deceible or MetalSucks like most of the more noteworthy bands like this garner. Second Skin (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant, independent reliable sources. The label they are affiliated with does not seem significant despite having a wiki page. In fact, it may be a good candidate for AfD. Note the discussion above re: AllMusic as reliable source. This particular review is user submitted, a feature on the site that allows members to log in and leave a review. (exact verbiage from ([55]]) when you click the "+" icon reads: "Sign up or Log In to your AllMusic Account to write a review." ) Perhaps a different discussion needs to be had elsewhere regarding AllMusic's unfortunate, regressive slide into more and more non-notable, user submitted content. But, at the very least, absent a valid AllMusic entry, there is nothing I could find that establishes this subject meeting wikipedia notability. As mentioned above, webzines and blogs--no matter how reliable some information may be therein--can not be used to established notability because of lack of verifiable editorial oversight. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krash Karma

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

I can't find any evidence this band meets inclusion criteria, the awards are loosely sourced and hardly notable and the article has only ever been sourced to non-rs. The single source available now is a hyper-local e-paper that is more fluff based on their myspace page than significant indepth coverage that has been subject to editorial oversight. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that was a fast WP:BEFORE in one minute or three, the Aquarian Weekly is a reliable source for music but agree more is needed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you assume I decided only today to AfD this. I have an entire list on a custom watchlist and notepad of articles that haven't ever been up to par. I did my before, I found nothing, I nominated. The reliability of the source you mentioned isn't the issue, it's the reliability of the piece itself and the fact that it's straight up puffery with no editorial oversight, taken from their defunct myspace page. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The second album Straight to the Blood was released via EMI Records, source: [56], Paint the Devil was released via Membran Records. --Goroth (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They even had a lot media coverage in German music press with reviews from Metal.de, Musikreviews.de, Stormbringer.at, Powermetal.de, and other media according to their press kit. They toured Europe and played festivals in Germany like Tells Bells in 2010, see [57]. Here is an interview with the band at The-pit.de. But the article needs to be re-written in my opinion. --Goroth (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how anything in their press kit helps. Releasing an album under a notable label shows significance but not notability. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sources, fails WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m a bit hesitant to weigh in as I don’t read German. However, with unsourced name drops of NFL and movie soundtracks, there is clearly some disingenuous hype at play here. One keep vote claims their second album “Straignt to the Blood” was released by EMI. But my further investigation shows that it was in fact recorded for the label Split Nail Records, which as near as I can tell is the groups own self-release label (a google search shows no other artists associated with the label.) The EMI connection is merely through that companies massive distribution services (something many releases can claim) which is a world of difference from being on a major or significant independent label. All the German language sources apparently are niche on-line reviews of this same self-produced album, not a difficult feat per WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Given no significant independent coverage and a lack of third party sources I say delete. Maybe with some legwork the article could be improved (the band has a modest social media following indicating a legitimate following within their genre) but it appears the band itself—per their website—have already accounted for everything that’s out there and it’s all pretty minor, routine and or self-promotional, per the nomination. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shivnath Mishra

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

I started this page when I was under the impression that the subject's notability could be ascertained reasonably well. However, there have been few cited additions since, and it is likely that the page does not meet notability standards, and is also not easily verifiable due to a lack of independent verifiable sources. This page could possibly be merged with Deobrat Mishra whose notability seems to have been established. Shobhit102 | talk 09:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

they seem to have similar awards. Their father was also a musician, s was their uncle. Perhaps an article for the family? DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe info regarding other members in the family could be added in the son's page. This by itself does not seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:IRS. Shobhit102 | talk 19:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough: Seems notable enough, has coverage in Hindi and vernacular media..like "प्रख्यात सितार वादक पं. शिवनाथ मिश्र" (Noted Sitar player...) in Hindustan, third-largest circulated newspaper in India.. Have added 2 more links. All the best. --Ekabhishek^talk 14:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 09:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 16:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 06:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 6 June 2018 (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Seung Ri

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

WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG not met --Quek157 (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Momoland as {{R avoided double redirect}} of Nancy (South Korean singer), and protect it to avoid recreation. (Not that this will stop the inevitable whack-a-mole games; witness Park Ji Min (BTS), Park Ji-min (1995), Park Ji-min (born 1995), Park Jimin (bts), Park Jimin (male), Park Jimin (musician), Park Jimin BTS, Park Jimin(BTS), Jimin (BTS), Jimin (singer), et cetera ad nauseum). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft as the blocked nominator only waited 3 minutes after creation to AFD this which caused the abandonment of the article. In draft space it can go through the AFC process if it is picked up, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2018 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vaultry

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry an article. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform, so every band is not automatically entitled to have an article on here just because they exist -- but nothing here passes any of the notability criteria for bands, and the referencing is entirely to blogs and podcasts and their own social networking profiles, not to real media that would help get them over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - I don't think you can condemn all of the sources in the article as merely podcasts and social networking. The following appear to be reliable and independent of the band: [58], [59], [60], [61]. However those are still fairly obscure and spotty, so I am undecided on whether they qualify as significant in the notability guidelines. But the arguments in Bearcat's nomination may not reflect the situation. On the other hand, if the article is kept it definitely needs to be pared down to verifiable facts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree that the 4 sources cited by DOOMSDAYER520 indicate reliable coverage. Sources 1 and 4 are run-of-the-mills quasi-promo paragraphs or two of upcoming appearances/releases (authorship of #4 is credited not to a writer, but rather “victoriamusicscene.”) Source #2 is radio station’s website with a Band of the Month profile (credited to “Webmesiter Bud”) wherein the text is paraphrased content from the “about” section on the band’s website. Source #3 is emphatically not a reliable source; they solicit content per their “contact” section: https://www.unfazedmag.com/contact-1/ Other sources in the article, per the nominator’s comment, similarly fail. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Did google a bit. Couldn't find strong references. Farahpoems (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMUSIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2018 (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gopika Poornima

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

Sources are all track listings, profile pages, interviews, and fluff pieces. No comprehensive or serious journalistic coverage. Waggie (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hi Waggie!. Gopika Poornima is a notable singer in Telugu film industry. This link is a serious news website with respectable standards at least in Andhra Pradesh, the state to which the singer belongs to. There are other news articles where her name is referred though they do not cover her biographical details. They are mostly taken from the interviews. this link belongs to one of the top 3 Telugu news paper Andhra Jyothy which proves her notability. Let me know what else can I do to save this article from being deleted.Ravichandra (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello రవిచంద్ర (Ravichandra), unfortunately interviews aren't sufficient to establish notability. We need comprehensive coverage that is independent of the subject. Can you provide links to news articles that discuss them that aren't interviews, and are serious journalism? I just don't see any here. The only thing close is the article regarding the Veturi Memorial award. Non-English sources are acceptable, provided they follow the guidelines set out in WP:RS. Thank you for your time and efforts. Waggie (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie Thank you for the suggestions. I got one more reference from another good resource The Hindu where she got best singer award. this link. One more here. I will take some time and I am sure I can gather more resources. Please don't delete this article.Ravichandra (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sources you added. Unfortunately, these sources do not offer comprehensive coverage, they only mention Gopika in passing. Content from articles should be summarized from what reliable sources have to say. If the source only lists her name alongside many others and doesn't discuss her at all, then it's not a useful source for establishing notability. Waggie (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie, You mean to say there should be at least one full article dedicated to her in a reliable source? how about this? Ravichandra (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interview. And we require multiple articles that discuss the subject comprehensively and independently of the subject, otherwise there isn't independent content to summarize for an article. Waggie (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added one more article as a source from Andhra Jyothy. This article is not an interview and independently written by a journalist. Waggie can this be considered for notability? Ravichandra (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poster above says Interviews aren't sufficient. These seems a strange reasoning. An interview piece shows that the publication had an interest in writing about the singer. The way the publication writes about the subject (interview, bio, review) seems irrelevant to discussions about notability, unless it's merely an advertorial. Also, I believe the submitter is nominating this subject for deletion based on the article, not the subject. Not sure the nominator here has done sufficient WP:BEFORE. Egaoblai (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egaoblai Thank you for your comment. I don't have much experience in identifying/differentiating sources which can prove the notability of the subject. I was thinking that if a reliable news paper (In India) like The Hindu or Andhra Jyothy publishes an article, irrespective of type of the article, it can support the notability. However I have already given one Independent article from Andhra Jyothy as a source and a few interviews from the The Hindu and other references for factual correctness. These are not advertorial in nature. I don't know if these are sufficient for removing the proposed deletion tag. Ravichandra (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this seems like an easy vote to Keep from me. TheHindu.com featured article is a strong indication of notability here, and there are plenty of other source to verify and pass wp:n too.Egaoblai (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources, they are the subject talking about themselves. We need secondary sources to provide content to summarize, and consequently need secondary sources to establish notability (ie: whether there is content to summarize for there to be content for an article). Waggie (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of notability, if an independent publication chooses to publish an interview with an individual then it can be seen that this publication has found the subject notable, which is of course the basis of notability here. Egaoblai (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but we need articles to be summarized from reliable, secondary sources. How can we do that if all the sources are primary (them talking about themselves), or simply track listings? It would require original research, which isn't what Wikipedia is about. Waggie (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie, This article is secondary. Though the content is written before I added this source, but all the important facts written in this article have a reference to this article. There is only one source (allmusic.com) which contains track listings. If it is not going to help this article in any way, I can remove it. Remaining all sources are supporting the article in some way. Can you remove the deletion tag now? Ravichandra (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi రవిచంద్ర! That's a good start! Do you have any more such secondary sources? We can't base a Wikipedia article on only one such source, it would not represent a balanced viewpoint. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie, I will try to find other secondary sources. But my question is, If the article is based on a single source supported by other primary sources, is it deserved to be deleted? As far as I know {{One source}} is a better tag for this article.Ravichandra (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm leaning delete on this due to lack of sources and coverage. The article in TheHindu is a good start but it's only one source and as Waggie has pointed out, it is primary. Notability isn't really established enough for me to justify keeping this one unless someone can find more sources (I looked - didn't see anything). -- Dane ^talk 04:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dane, This article is secondary source as the other languages are also acceptable. I already pointed out and is submitted for notability There is one secondary and multiple primary sources. She has received some awards for which there are references from the leading news papers like The Hindu, Times of India, and other language news papers to which the subject belings to. Ravichandra (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to Delete - I believe this article should continue. The references provided are sufficient and they are notable. More references can be provided in due course. Hence not necessary to Delete.-- స్వరలాసిక/Svaralaasika 15:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
No Need to Delate.she is known singer in telugu film industry. These preferences are enough to keep article. Later can add more references..--B.K.Viswanadh (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm rather suspect of all these accounts with very low edit counts showing up to comment on this discussion. Trying to assume good faith, but it's not easy. Waggie (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any problem if users with low edit count participating in the discussion even if they know the context of the subject? Ravichandra (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gopika Poornima is famous singer in South India. So, No need to Delete this article.--Pranayraj1985 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be good to get some more opinions of established editors, different from the obvious sock/meatpuppetry (or canvassing on other websites).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment'-!voting soon....Please wait a bit:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage including secondary coverage such as the Hindu. Interviews may be considered for notability as per the last section of WP:Interview, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThese interviews are taken by mainstream newspapers of India and are notable enough to be acknowledged here. Besides, secondary coverage is also available on the subject. Also, she has been awarded for her work in the past. Referencing needs to be improved, but poor referencing doesn't mean the subject is not notable. Dial911 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Atlantic306 and Dial911, I would encourage you to read that section more carefully, especially the second-to-last paragraph. Interviews where the subject are basically given carte blanche are mentioned specifically as something that WP:NOTPROMOTION discounts. Also, "An example would be a fan magazine interview with a celebrity about their new movie or new child. They're not likely to question them sharply on whether the movie is any good or whether motherhood is really a joyful experience." Then please take another look at the interviews. I do not believe the interviews constitute solid journalistic coverage to meet the threshold of WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, or WP:NMUSICBIO. Aside from the interviews, we have AllMusic, simple filmographies, and passing mentions. What secondary coverage are you referring to, Dial911? Can you provide some links? I found nothing of better quality than what's already in the article (most was far worse). What notable awards has she received? If I've missed something, I'm happy to concede. Waggie (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National newspapers are not fan magazines, and the Hindu piece is a secondary coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting they were, I was pointing out the principle of basically letting the interviewee promote themselves, which is what that section of WP:INTERVIEW was talking about. Waggie (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ABN Andhra Jyothi, a notable Telugu TV news channel also covered her significantly. News TV channels don't generally cover a man on the street. You can find videos of the telecast uploaded by the official verified account of ABN on youtube. These video references meet WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOREF. Also, just because these regional language news sources are not 'famous' in the world, doesn't mean that they are not notable. Hope you get the point. After finding news TV coverage on the person, it has become Strong Keep for me. Dial911 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notable award she received is Nandi Awards for Television the reference for which is already mentioned. This is the from The Hindu. This article can be cited for the notability of the awards. She was nominated for Filmfare award for the best singer multiple times. You can check here entries here.Ravichandra (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bands and musicians Templates for deletion

Proposed deletions

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

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ==Bands and musicians==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fereidoun Khoshnoud}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Vinante}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aretha_Henry}}

Revision as of 14:27, 13 June 2018

Bands and musicians

Bands and musicians Templates for deletion

Categories