Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Music|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Music. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Related deletion sorting


Music

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

The result was keep‎. given article improvements and consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Shapiro (journalist)

Peter Shapiro (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards keep on the subject of this article. I disagree with the nominators assessment here - particularly as the applicable guideline is WP:AUTHOR, where independent coverage of the author's work is sufficient to evidence notability; WP:INHERITED does not apply. I have found and added several independent citations to the article, including a number of RS book reviews and RS articles stating the importance of the works of Shapiro. As such I !vote to keep this article per WP:AUTHOR#3: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Article could really use expansion however. Per WP:NOPAGE I also recommend a single central article on the author and his works, rather than multiple articles on the books themselves. - I recommend Modulations: A History of Electronic Music is redirected to Shapiro if the result of this AfD is to keep. ResonantDistortion 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you adding reviews links to the article. I disagree with you on the eligibility for WP:AUTHOR #3. While the author has created a couple of independently notable works, none of the reviews or sources describe the significance of his body of work; they are about individual works. While I agree that Modulations and Turn the Beat Around are notable, I don't think there are any sources to describe them as "significant" nor do any sources discuss them in the context of Shapiro's body of work. Considering that the only available sources are reviews of individual works, the notability should go to the works themselves. Furthermore, the reviews provide virtually no WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, which would leave this article a WP:PERMASTUB without verifiable biographical information. The absence of significant coverage points toward delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is enough coverage to write a non-stub article on Shapiro that is focused on his works. Frankly I find the sourcing on Modulations: A History of Electronic Music to be limited - it struggles to meet notability guidelines and it should be merged and redirected to the parent article Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, as a section in that page. As for WP:AUTHOR#3 - I am struggling to follow the above logic as the guidelines clearly do not require secondary coverage of the works as a body; a single book suffices. In this case we have at minimum one fully notable work and several more works with RS secondary coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period, and the best place to manage this would be the single article on the author. To support this with an example, His 2005 book, The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, has reliable sources both recommending it and stating it is important; but this is likely not enough for a standalone article, so the author article is the next best place. (Note - given the age of some of the books - we can very likely presume that offline coverage exists beyond a standard search engine). ResonantDistortion 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what I question on criterion 3: is his work "significant and well-known"? I agree the one book meets the standard of "notable," but "significant and well-known" is different, if undefined. I find it difficult to understand how someone's work could be significant and well-known and the author of them remain sufficiently unknown that there are no reliable sources to validate even birth date or country of origin. (Sources disagree about whether Shapiro is American or British.) I'd be OK with a redirect of this page to an article for Turn the Beat Around if one were to be created, but without anything significant coverage I'm defaulting to WP:COMMONSENSE for a situation in which we can't really construct a biography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are going to disagree on this one. Given there are a number of reliable sources dedicated to the subjects' other books, but are not sufficiently SIGCOV in and of themselves to create several separate articles for each, the best option (per my version of WP:COMMONSENSE!) would be the other way round: Turn the Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco should redirect to Peter Shapiro (journalist) so we have a single page for all his works. ResonantDistortion 02:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With the addition of new sources, I don't see any particular concern with notability. Shankargb (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To elucidate why I think the (many) book reviews of Shapiro's work don't constitute WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, here's what the sigcov policy states: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Right now, the article as it stands is just a few sentences, hardly any about Shapiro himself and about his work, and the sourcing doesn't really permit anything further to be written. As noted above, we don't even have the most basic information about his life. Thus my argument that the books are notable but that the author is not. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on whether WP:AUTHOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep : I've also found this [1], but it also appears on the article author's (Howard Blas') website. I suppose it's a RS Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: and this in Variety [2] Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand this article refers to a different Peter Shapiro (concert promoter) - who also writes books on the music business. Which makes source finding doubly tricky! ResonantDistortion 05:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I find no coverage for this individual, sources I'd identified are for a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b - in the article are cited 14 secondary refs covering the books written by the subject of this article. This includes seven full page reviews of one of his works, multiple other reviews of his other works and further WP:RS stating the importance and recommending these other works. I personally do not see how WP:NAUTHOR is not met, and there's easily enough coverage to, at minimum, build a start class article based upon the works this individual has created (it took me about 5 minutes to expand the article by ~400%). ResonantDistortion 06:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • With the biographical information identified and added by ResonantDistortion (thanks!) I now think we have enough basic information, paired with the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR, to keep, so I withdraw my nomination and change my !vote to keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square. Star Mississippi 14:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beastie Boys Square

Beastie Boys Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic of this article does not meet WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. In short, this is one of many commemorative street names given to locations in New York City. The only coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS coverage of the renaming being denied, then approved. A previous attempt to merge the content to Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square (where the content has already existed since September 2023) per WP:NOPAGE was reverted. Epicgenius (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and New York. Epicgenius (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore merge location above, or merge to Beastie Boys. Fair game to mention somewhere, but I'm failing to see why it needs its own stand-alone article when there's so little of substance to say on it. Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep there is quite a lot of coverage on the 10 year journey. There are plenty of articles, probably over 100 plus TV coverage.. it will, be included in books and it is a designated Sq in NYc. Def passes Wikipedia:GNG VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:MERGEREASON - even if there's sources, its a valid decision to merge things if the article is short and easily placed in the context of a related article, which perfectly fits in this situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one looking for info on the square would go to an article about an album. I added several articles from 2014, 2019 and 2021 to show ongoing coverage but, there are thousands more and the article could certainly be improved beyond what would be appropriate for a section under Pauls Boutique. There is coverage on several votes, the guy who lobbied for it, and the tasks they had to accomplish to get it approved. I didnt write a front page article.. its 3 days old.. do what you want but there is 10 years of I n depth coverage.. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point about "no one looking for info" will be easily met by leaving a redirect from Beastie Boys Square. ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to WP:REDIRECTs and how they work, people will find it just find it just find in the merge target if they type in the name in the search bar. And if there's "10 years of coverage", then you should use that to write an article with more substance and content. Right now its quite barren. Is there anything else to say other than "they tried a couple times and eventually it happened?". There's not much more than that right now... Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I updated it with some more info but the idea is they have a huge fanbase to contribute.. the article was 3 days old before he tried to delete it without even leaving me a message on my page. VeniceBreeze (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldnt anyone think this is an important site that should have coordinates and a map pin for tourists? VeniceBreeze (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is objecting to the inclusion of coordinates or a map. However, when I merged the article, it looked like this.
    I understand you may feel offended that I didn't leave a message on your talk page when I merged the article. I did not delete anything; all of the content in the article, aside from the references, was already in Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square, with some minor wording changes. To be honest, I was looking for reliable sources so the article could be expanded, but all I found were references that parroted what was already in the page, as well as unreliable sources. (This page currently contains four NY Post sources, which are generally not reliable per WP:NYPOST, and an Atlas Obscura geography article, which is not reliable per WP:AOPLACES.) – Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ny post is fine except for politics. Its the oldest and most read paper in ny. If you dont like it, a simple search for beastie boys square before 2020 results in 1000s of hits.[3]https://www.google.com/search?q=beastie+boys+square&sca_esv=cfae4c7047bddcaf&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS945US945&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2013%2Ccd_max%3A2019&sxsrf=ADLYWIIt9UAK34OYWynm8i2jGGNjm9pQxA%3A1716659031135&ei=VyNSZv7xB_7GkPIPmqGEqAo&ved=0ahUKEwi--YCeramGAxV-I0QIHZoQAaUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=beastie+boys+square&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2JlYXN0aWUgYm95cyBzcXVhcmUyBBAjGCcyBBAjGCcyERAuGIAEGJECGMcBGIoFGK8BMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeSO0OUIkDWPwHcAF4AJABAJgBYKABowOqAQE1uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIFoAK5A8ICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BmAMAiAYBkgcDNC4xoAftIw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp VeniceBreeze (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to post an external link.. not sure why that all came out. I posted more sources incase the ny post doesnt represent reputable coverage of The Beastie Boys and NYC events. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what WP:NYPOST says... Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be an experienced editor.. why are you purposely being ignorant and obtuse? I said i added additional articles.. LA Times, Variety, Billboard, Rolling Stone.. all prior to the 2020 coverage.. there is plenty for an article and its a tourist attraction. VeniceBreeze (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that have to do what I said? You said NY Post was okay to use outside of politics. That's objectively not the current stance. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it not say i added billboard, rolling stone, variety,and the LA Times if you werent happy w the NY Post's coverage of the Beastie Boys. All before 2020? VeniceBreeze (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't commenting on everything you said, I was merely singling out a falsehood you stated in your argument. You haven't countered that point at all, so I'll assume you're dropping that aspect of your argument. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop trying to provoke me into an argument. You can lawyer all you want but an easy search shows how many articles the nypost is cited in. Also, i feel very threatened and triggered by the messages and attempts to provoke me on my talk page. I would appreciate it if you would keep the conversation here. Im done working on this article.. if 20 years of experience lead you tp these beliefs, fine. I believe in quantum information storage, so if your lying it will be recorded for eternity. Best of luck to everyone.. good bye beastie boys square, no page forever.. thanks to these voters VeniceBreeze (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to provoke you into anything. I corrected your statement on the NYP and notified you of WP:NPA on your talk page since you keep calling me "ignorant" and "obtuse" for not agreeing with you. How you feel threatened by this series of events is beyond baffling to me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore merge to Paul's Boutique § Beastie Boys Square, which contains content identical to the article, although missing the Gothamist source. A merge will preserve the visibility of the history and the functionality of inbound links. Folly Mox (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. gidonb (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2024 (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 Vandals discography#Extended plays. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vandals / Assorted Jelly Beans

The Vandals / Assorted Jelly Beans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable split record. toweli (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Vandals discography#Extended plays: found no reliable coverage in digital archives. Assorted Jelly Beans is a redirect to a band member's article which doesn't even mention this split, and the target I chose appears to be the only place which does. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Vandals discography#Extended plays. I couldn't find reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radiowv

Radiowv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All references are just passing mentions, not enough in-depth coverage for an article. Clearfrienda 💬 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The sources of the article provide the details on the founding, history, reach, cultural impact, and customers of the entity, which seems quite deep. The Tennessean, for example, describes the entity as a «tastemaker» within its musical genre. Anyway, the article sources include, so far:
    • CNN
    • American Songwriter
    • Variety
    • The Atlantic
    • The Tennessean
    • Billboard
    • Pulitzer-award winning SFGate
    • News Corp Australia
    Have we ever deleted an article with such blue-chip sourcing from multiple years and internationally coming from multiple continents spanning the globe? XavierItzm (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these references offer in-depth coverage which is essential to meet WP:GNG. The Tennessean article is about Oliver Anthony's new song, not the YouTube channel, and only briefly mentions it. All the other sources are the same: brief mentions in articles mainly about the song. This does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Some of them don't mention the channel at all. I'd recommend merging it into another article because some information is useful but it doesn't warrant its own Wikipedia article.
    Also, XavierItzm, if you have "a vested interest in the article," (e.g. you created the article) make sure to disclose it before participating in the AfD discussion (see WP:AVOIDCOI).
    Clearfrienda 💬 02:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have stated an absolute falsehood: «Some of them don't mention the channel at all» [the references] and I would kindly ask that you retract that falsehood. On the contrary, each and every single source in the article cites Radiovw by name, as can be readily checked in the Refs section of the article.

Yeah, I created that article and I’ve created numerous articles across various Wikipedia projects totaling about 21,000 edits since 2014, including 54 articles in the en.wikipedia alone. As an amateur editor, this is the first time anyone asks if I have a COI, so I guess this is sort of like a new badge of honour for me? As a retired guy since a long time ago, I have zero COIs on the Wikipedia project. XavierItzm (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles don't mention the subject. This The Atlantic article does not mention the channel, for example. What's actually important is the lack of significant coverage of the channel. The majority of mentions in references are trivial — the references aren't "about" the channel, they just mention it briefly. For an article to meet GNG, it has to have significant coverage. Significant coverage is not trivial mentions (see WP:TRIVIAL). Some references are slightly more than trivial, but are still just brief mentions.
You do have a conflict of interest at this AfD discussion because you clearly have a "vested interest in the article" (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute). That's not a problem but it's generally policy to disclose it so you don't mislead other participants.
Snarky remarks aren't helping.
Clearfrienda 💬 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Atlantic article[1] is used to establish the styling of the script for Radiowv (which was the subject of discussion on the TP). And yes, the Atlantic article does use the style RadioWV in a caption and it is a proper use of a source for a debated detail of the article (to wit, the sources use three different stylings: Radiowv, RadioWV and radiowv). The one source you are arguing about and which mistakenly you cited using plural (as if you had found multiple instances of that of which you actually found none) does mention Radiowv in writing!, thus refuting your false assertion: «Some articles don't mention the subject»

Your lack of contrition and refusal to acknowledge your stated 100% false assertion is troubling and the closer should take note.XavierItzm (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your point is. A credit in a photo caption does not help to prove notability. It doesn't matter if a reference doesn't mention the subject if you're using it to back up information. We're talking about notability here, though. For an article to meet the general notability guidelines it needs significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. I don't see how Radiowv meets this criteria with no in-depth coverage anywhere and a few brief, often completely trivial, mentions in other articles. Do you have any examples of references that help meet this criteria? Because right now other participants see no evidence of actually proving notability and instead just see useless arguing. I'd be happy to help if you need it.
Please stop with the uncivil attacks and start actually contributing to the discussion.
Clearfrienda 💬 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Misguided Debate Over "Rich Men North of Richmond"". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023. Oliver Anthony / RadioWV [from photo caption]
  2. ^ Wickstrom, Matt (1 December 2023). "How RadioWV, the Platform That Helped Launch Oliver Anthony, is Providing an Outlet for Appalachian Songwriters". Wide Open Country. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
  3. ^ Chris Dickerson (13 December 2023). "Defendant files counterclaim in 'Rich Men North of Richmond' case". West Virginia Record. Retrieved 16 May 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion as there is no consensus. By now, I've closed thousands of AFDs and while article creators sometimes self-identify, I don't think it is mandatrory or a COI. If anyone who created or edited an article has a COI then so does the editor seeking its deletion. And don't accuse another editor of being "snarky" when you yourself or making irrelevant accusations. Anyone is free to participate in an AFD except sockpuppets and a few editors with editing restrictions so let's focus on arguments and not personalities.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see any coverage that is unrelated to Oliver Anthony, but I'm also not certain that such coverage is necessary. The "Wide Open Country" reference from XavierItzm, while clearly motivated by Anthony, substantially discusses other aspects of radiowv. As Oliver Anthony isn't a reasonable redirect target, my vote is to keep. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The cited WOC above is only one source, but [4] is another, which according to WP:MULTSOURCES should be enough to establish notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked citation [2] again, and it indeed doesn't go in-depth, despite its title. However, I believe the actually significant article I've provided and all the trivial mentions add up to provide this outlet some borderline notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing is about this channel that I can find, it's all about the gentleman and his song. Trivial mentions don't help notability. Even with what's now in the article, it's all a one-liner explaining what the channel is, in articles about other things. There is nothing extensive in any sourcing about this channel. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources cited are adequate to support the notability of the subject. The fact that a news source is "regional" has no bearing on its reliability; most news sources are regional, and countless notable topics fail to achieve national coverage. A "passing" or "trivial" mention isn't one that discusses one topic in relation to another; it's literally a drive-by name-dropping, and that's not what these sources provide. The article may be in need of cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup. P Aculeius (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AUD says that regional coverage cannot be used for notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should reread the section you linked me to, which says the opposite. P Aculeius (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WVR is a weekly legal publication. The biggest WV newspaper would probably be the Charleston Gazette Aaron Liu (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement was that "regional coverage cannot be used for notability", and that's explicitly contradicted by the linked section of the notability guideline. Although it gives "the largest newspaper in a state" as an example, that can hardly be regarded as a comprehensive list of acceptable regional sources (by that logic, in Pennsylvania you would have to choose between news from Philadelphia or Pittsburgh; in Ohio, between Columbus, Cincinnati, or Cleveland, etc.). The Herald-Dispatch has a circulation comparable to that of the Charleston Gazette, and there are other papers of significance in the region—just in West Virginia, Parkersburg and Morgantown come to mind as having important papers.
    While the West Virginia Record is indeed a legal paper, it's neither a small-town paper or one of "limited interest and circulation", as described by the policy, which gives as an example "a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job". That hardly describes a legal newspaper covering the entire state—it's not something that could be fairly described as a "newsletter", nor is its readership exclusive to "people with a very unusual job"; I don't think that describes the legal profession, or the business community, very well—although I would certainly prefer coverage in papers such as the Charleston Gazette or Herald-Dispatch.
    The article also cites a number of national and regional sources beyond West Virginia: The Tennessean, The Atlantic, CNN. While their coverage may focus on the specifics of a legal case or individual singers, they provide a bit more than mere "trivial coverage" or "passing mentions" of the channel. Taken together with the other materials, I conclude that the topic meets the minimum threshold for notability, and thus the article should be kept. P Aculeius (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can someone give me a link to the WP:THREE here? My perusal of what's currently on the article largely looks like someone trying to piggy-back coverage centered around one of their artists rather than significant coverage on the subject itself. Sergecross73 msg me 11:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing: Rolling Stone, in an article authored by blue-linked David Browne (journalist) sez: «RadioWV, a YouTube channel devoted to off-the-grid country and folk singers in and around Appalachia [...] Around five years ago, Riffe co-founded RadioWV, the YouTube channel devoted to the type of woodsy, unadorned country songs [...] When Riffe heard [...he...] wanted to film Anthony singing for RadioWV [...] 85 million views [on RadioWV], compared with the roughly 100,000 maximum of most RadioWV posts [...] RadioWV alumni, like Nolan Taylor, who recently signed a deal with Atlantic Records». Now, the problem with this Rolling Stone article is that it only mentions RadioWV in passing 5 times, telling us what it is, what it does, its geographic area of sourcing, its date of founding, its founder, its musical style, how it came across its biggest star, how many people watch its average videos and some of its greatest hits, some of its "alumni", and which labels some of the RadioWV alumni have signed up with.[1] So definitively this article is not the best sourcing. For that you would have to look at the two articles cited above, which are both WP:INDEPTH articles written solely and exclusively about RadioWV: [2][3]. Those would be your WP:THREE, leaving out, of course, CNN, American Songwriter, Billboard, SFGate, etc., which are among the 18 refs in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, I'm having a hard time formulating a keep stance here. The Wide Open Country source is significant coverage, but I'm not familiar with whether or not its a reliable source. I've never heard of it, and its not listed at WP:RSMUSIC (which isn't required, I just mean I don't have any reference point on it yet.) The Rolling Stones stuff, like much of what's used in the article, is just passing mentions in an article largely about Oliver Anthony. The West Virginia Record is really more about the legal issues some of its people are entangled in. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI think the WideOpenCountry article sways it for me, along with the passing coverage and the fact they have got some attention from previous artists publishing on there, just passes WP:GNG, but it's borderline. I can't really see anywhere else to merge/redirect this to, which would by my preference here, and for me it doesn't fall to the level to support deletion, so keep it is. Mdann52 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ DAVID BROWNE (17 November 2023). "Oliver Anthony Became a Symbol of Populist Rage. The Truth Is More Complex". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 16 May 2024. RadioWV, a YouTube channel devoted to off-the-grid country and folk singers in and around Appalachia […] RadioWV alumni, like Nolan Taylor, who recently signed a deal with Atlantic Records
  2. ^ Wickstrom, Matt (1 December 2023). "How RadioWV, the Platform That Helped Launch Oliver Anthony, is Providing an Outlet for Appalachian Songwriters". Wide Open Country. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
  3. ^ Chris Dickerson (13 December 2023). "Defendant files counterclaim in 'Rich Men North of Richmond' case". West Virginia Record. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SAHDUOO Saxophone

SAHDUOO Saxophone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Island Festival

Piano Island Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a non-notable festival with no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search yields only a few passing mentions, but nothing that satisfies WP:GNG. GSS 💬 13:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:26, 27 May 2024 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back Porch Records

Back Porch Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG, was unable to find any significant coverage other than brief mentions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Wisconsin. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. I'm confused as to why this was taken to AfD at all. The nominator initially redirected it to a list page of EMI sublabels, which I reverted because it was not subject to any discussion, nothing was merged, and the target had no information about the label. The nominator then immediately brought it to AfD, when the obvious thing to do would be to start a merge discussion; I mean, for Pete's sake, this label put out full lengths from people like Frank Black, Shannon McNally, Charlie Sexton, and John Hammond Jr., so of course we don't want a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign your comments and if you are proposing a Redirect or Merge, identify a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Although the artists associated with Back Porch Records clearly pass the WP:NBASIC threshold, the label can't inherit that notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. I was able to find a couple mentions: Aspen Times and Billboard but those are just mentions. Seems like Back Porch Records itself might best be served as mentions on Universal Music and/or Virgin Records pages? MertenMerten (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Recent !votes for delete have surfaced (the NOTINHERITED concerns are misplaced, I think; there's no reason for us to cover a label but for the fact that it published notable artists), but why would we prefer a redlink over a merge to the parent label? Chubbles (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If this article were Merged, what would be the Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably the best merge target would be Narada Records, its parent label for most of its run, per [5] (note that this source calls it "a major force in roots and Americana music styles"). Chubbles (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chubbles, Narada Records is a redirect. If you use one of the commonly used script, you'd see this because it's in a green font color. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its target, Narada Productions, would be the target then. In practice, people often call this label Narada Records. Chubbles (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I find WP:NOTINHERITED to be a major detriment to Wikipedia as a whole. We cannot limit the scope of knowledge in such a way and consider this project complete. This is a strong keep. Fireandflames2 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total lack of SIRS coverage. There are good reasons why companies need to meet NORG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is redlinking this title preferable when there is a clear merge target? (Leaving aside that the label certainly meets WP:MUSIC's sense of an important indie label.) Chubbles (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Narada Productions per above. Special:WhatLinksHere/Back_Porch_Records indicates that this should remain bluelinked, but there's a lack of sigcov for a keep. (It's possible that a future target could be an article for Back Porch Record's founder Ken Pedersen, though there aren't enough sources visible to establish GNG currently). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Call This Music?! Volume 2

AfDs for this article:
You Call This Music?! Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable compilation album that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. The only review I could find is the OC Weekly one linked, no other reviews or WP:SIGCOV found. No clear redirect target as the record label was deleted for being non-notable. Last AfD (in 2006) closed as no consensus. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so a Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Lots of hits on the name, but none about this album. Not meeting notability requirements these days on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "It has lots of Google hits, so it must be notable" was basically the result of the last AfD, what fun times those were. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here's the linkrotted OC Weekly review. That's not gonna do it. So, can we merge to Volume 1? No article. That album got a 14-word review in the forgotten pages of Punk Planet 54 and an admittedly much better review in Razorcake #2. I can't link you that one because I'm 90% sure the host for the pdf I read is violating copyright. Trust me that it's a pretty good review, but the publication is a self-described fanzine and so—despite its history—lacks the editorial control to be a reliable source to establish notability. Well, let's just merge it to the record label, then. Guess not that, either. Lubal (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, as subject crashingly fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (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 nomination withdrawn thanks to FanDePopLatino's work. Mach61 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

List of number-one hits of 1962 (Peru)

List of number-one hits of 1962 (Peru) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
List of number-one hits of 1963 (Peru) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 1964 (Peru) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 1965 (Peru) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one hits of 1966 (Peru) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles lack any relevant citations, as I raised on their creator's talk page two months ago, so they are in violation of the verifiability policy. Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHARTS makes no mention of La Prensa or any other Peruvian charts, so I'm not sure this data would even be considered reliable to begin with. Also worth noting that if these are deleted, {{PeruvianNumber1s}} also needs to go as it will be entirely redlinks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If data come from Billboard they are certainly reliable (see WP:CHARTS#Suitable charts#1), if they come from La Prensa very likely too (also per Suitable charts#1), but as per the nomination the current reference is blatantly unrelated as points to an article about Aretha Franklin. --Cavarrone 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I looked into it because I do know that in Perú we've had charts for many decades. The articles nominated are badly sourced and don't have the true information about the songs that topped the charts but I was able to find sources like this one from Billboard Magazine that has a chart from Perú in their "Hits of the World" section on page 28. The source also credits "La Prensa" as the publisher of the chart so the information on the articles isn't actually false, it's just not properly source. We can add some page curation tags to the articles and I can fix them up with reliable sources. I can also share this articles with other Peruvian editors and editors who are part of the Latin Music Project to see if any of them are interested in helping me out with this. FanDePopLatino (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @FanDePopLatino Normally I would agree that merely lacking sources is not reason enough to delete a page if they can be found, but I think this sort of list is an exception to that rule. This is about a very specific subject for which there is only one type of source available (old back-catalog editions of Billboard or La Parenta), written by an active editor who should have known they'd have to cite their sources, and yet couldn't be bothered to do so. Without citations, a list like this is useless to someone trying to do research, in a way an uncited prose article is not. Perhaps these pages can be draftified? Mach61 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: in principle I'm leaning keep, because the material does seem to be out there. My concern is whether there is enough to make complete lists at present... it looks like only 11 weeks of the year 1966 are available, for example, which is going to lead to big gaps in the 1966 list unless back copies of La Prensa itself can be located. Richard3120 (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:@Mach61 I understand that the editor who created these articles didn't bother to use citations but I have from the moment I was notified of this. If you look back at the articles now you will see that I already finished 1963, make substantial progress on 1962 and 1966, started a bit on 1964, and have yet to get to 1965 but I plan on it. Drafting the pages would be an alternative if they still weren't sourced but as you can see, the articles no longer lack relevant citations or violate verifiability so the reasons for the deletion nomination are no longer relevant since those issues have already been addressed and fixed. FanDePopLatino (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2024 (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. Malinaccier (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypelist

Hypelist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an WP:ADMASQ of a non-notable app/company. Speedy deletion was contested by a new editor who claims to be a "fan" of the app. No evidence of satisfying WP:NPRODUCT or WP:ORGIND. The references all provide routine coverage and/or are from unreliable sources. Teemu.cod (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my analyzation of the article:
Like said in the nomination, the article, especially the product section, is positive about the "mobile social application". Buzz words like popular and AI-driven are used along with a dose of ethos, stating that several celebrities use it.
The citations seem to mostly based in trendiness or promotion. For example, HIGHXTAR is designed to advertise to the youths. Trying to research the topic, most of the citations seem to be of the same caliber but there may be a few citations. Any additional citations should be analyzed. ✶Quxyz✶ 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable, as with Alfonso Cobo and related articles. There are sources from MSN, Conde Nast, Avenue Illustrated, and many other well-known sources. The article is meant to be a summary of existing sources, some of which might be bordering on the promotional side, but that can easily be fixed. There is no overtly promotional wording either, such as "award-winning" or "innovative" for instance. Moreover, this article satisfies basic notability criteria. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi MaghrebiFalafel, this is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria applies. You mentioned three sources. The MSN article is about a singer using the app - the article mentions the company in passing and does not provide any in-depth Independent Content about the company - fails CORPDEPTH. The Vanity Fair article is a "puff profile" on the founder and relies entirely on an interview. All the information is provided by the founder and has no Independent Content. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Finally the Avenue article has zero in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH. Are there any other sources you believe meets NCORP? If not, perhaps you might reconsider your !vote? HighKing++ 14:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Id looked up to see if there was any new news and didn't find any. Then given there already are some references in Spanish thought id see if there are other results in Spanish and there are: Larazon El Correo. They seem to say more of the same thing ie new app from this guy and it does xyz. I dont know if this helps establish notability. If the issue isn't the references, but the subject matter, so be it. If I had to vote it would be weakish keep but I also get the desire to delete. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep delete It's all hype about hypelist, and it may be TOO SOON, but the sourcing is reasonable. If this app does not pan out, the hype here may not be enough to save the article in the future. I looked again and the software has no reviews in the mac app store, and it only has one rating. All that we have are product announcements. I'm !voting to wait and see. Lamona (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the sourcing might not be enough in the future, then it definitely won't be enough now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, your comment got me to look again. Lamona (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems almost A7, wouldn't go G11 though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The sources about the song can't establish notability, because notability isn't transitive. The only source I think could possibly establish notability is the Rivera article. The Vanity Fair article is an interview that contains almost exclusively quotations from the subject themself, and I couldn't immediately establish the other sources as credible. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As I have mentioned elsewhere, Hypelist is definitely notable and has quite a few users. It's widely used by now and many other applications with similar notability levels are also on Wikipedia. Redcrablegs (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because a lot of people an app does guarantee notability. That's also a weasle statement: how many people are quite a few and who is providing these numbers? ✶Quxyz✶ 17:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Came back here to see what happened since my first comment. I noticed that the vote by Okmrman was deleted and they've now been blocked for being a sock puppet. On April 30 there was a comment on his talk page regarding spurious tagging of pages for speedy deletion. That was on April 30. This article was nominated for speedy deletion by a somewhat dormant account on May 9. The speedy was contested and 9 hours after this was nominated for deletion the sockpuppet voted here. Not that this affects the vote here one way or another. Sock puppet or not, doesn't impact whether a subject is notable or not, but the powers that be may wish to cast the Okmrman sock puppet net wider and investigate the editor who nominated this article for deletion. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz @Yamla Looking at this some more, I'm now convinced that Teemu.cod and Okmrman are one and the same. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly speaking, they were blocked for disruptive editing and their other account was the puppet (they're the master). It is a little weird, has AfD always been this much of a sockfest? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. It is peculiar. Then again, longer one spends here, harder it is to get shocked. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Teemu.cod is Red X Unrelated to Okmrman. Just a bizarre coincidence. --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ok thanks for looking into it. my apologies to teemu.cod MaskedSinger (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment People here saying the *company* is notable and then talking about the product are missing the point of establishing the notability of the *company*. None of the reference meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. If you think one does, can you please post a link here and point out which page/para meets NCORP including CORPDEPTH and ORGIND? HighKing++ 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hypelist's lead says "Hypelist is a mobile social application." The article is about the product (the app), not the company that launched the app. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertorial tone, and little or no depth to the coverage. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow. Can't believe this is still going. Not sure what's happening with AFD but this is a weird one. Nominated for deletion by editor who comes out of dormancy to nominate it and then hasn't edited since. Some editor who votes delete is blocked for going on a voting rampage. And then yesterday the discussion is closed not once, but twice by editors who are sock puppets?!?! Still this has nothing to do the merits of the page. Given that its been relisted twice and still no consensus, I think it should get the benefit of the doubt. It satsifies WP:GNG with the non English coverage and there is probably more non English coverage that can be translated and added. If it stays, Ill look for some and add it. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now closed a third time by some rogue editor! It's not just this article. It's also others that are up for deletion. Anyone have any idea what is going on and why? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah there's an AFD closing LTA. Just revert, WP:DENY and move on. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alpha3031 Wow! That's so bizarre. Why do they do it? MaskedSinger (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "'Hypelist', el nuevo proyecto del exitoso emprendedor español que triunfa en EE UU" ['Hypelist', the new project of the successful Spanish entrepreneur who triumphs in the US]. El Correo (in Spanish). 2024-04-15. Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.

      The article notes: "For the second time, the young entrepreneur has managed to cover another need of social media consumers in time. His new app, 'Hypelist', was launched a few months ago and aims to help people share recommendations for activities, products or places they are passionate about. The app innovates by leaving the framework of aesthetics and superficiality that so characterises content on today's networks, something that places this second project at an extreme opposite to 'Unfold', focused precisely on the visual. ... 'Hypelist' allows you to collect all the recommendations in a personalized space for when they are going to be missed. In this way, it has been presented as an application not for entertainment, something that already abounds, but for self-realisation and growth that pushes people to fulfill all their plans. ... This time the launch of the project has been accompanied by the 'Hypelist Session', events organised to promote the use of the new app and full of 'influencers' eager to share their recommendations through this new channel."

    2. Martin, Ruth (2024-03-26). "Esta es la Nueva App Que Usan Los Viajeros Expertos. Hypelist amenaza competir con Instagram y es perfecta para los que no pueden vivir sin las listas de favoritos" [This Is the New App That Expert Travelers Use. Hypelist threatens to compete with Instagram and is perfect for those who cannot live without favorites lists]. Grazia (in Italian). Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.

      The article notes: "Are you one of those who always makes lists for everything? Are you one of those who miss the guides that Instagram has made disappear and where you had your favorites saved? Then this new App is for you because with it you can organize, share and connect your best recommendations. It is called Hypelist and was created by a Spanish entrepreneur, Alfonso Cobo, who is not new to the world of entrepreneurship and technology. But not only can you create lists to save all your favorites, but you can also discover everything your favorite creators are obsessed with. Hypelist is the place where users share their true interests: the quirks that make them who they are; what truly obsesses and excites them"

    3. Pujalví, Camila (2024-02-07). "Hypelist: la aplicación para compartir recomendaciones que necesitas en tu móvil" [Hypelist: the application to share recommendations that you need on your mobile]. La Razón (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.

      The article notes: "In the blink of an eye, Hypelist has gone from a simple app to a cultural phenomenon. Its creator, Alfonso Cobo, recognised for his previous hits like Unfold, has once again surprised the market with what promises to be the hit of the year 2024. But his ambition goes far beyond conventional. Following the wild launch of the app, Cobo has decided to expand its reach and create an entire universe around Hypelist. Hypelist stands out as a platform to organize, share and connect the best recommendations. Aiming to appeal to a younger audience, Cobo has collaborated with talented singer Cara Hart to release a single titled "Hypelist.""

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hypelist to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cough, Cunard I don't think Grazia can be considered an RS for anything other than uncontroversial self descriptions, certainly not for establishing notability. I mean, on their about page, which is very conveniently written in English, where most publications normally put how they're totally very well edited and all that, they instead put:

    Our award-winning team prides ourselves on working with partners to create interesting, unexpected and unique experiences. Our collaborations are designed to deliver incremental value to our partners’ businesses. GRAZIA has a wide range of solutions to suit almost any kind of marketing and media mix. We offer branded content, video, integration into editorial franchises, innovative high impact ad units and local events.

    ... Yeah. I'll look at the other ones in a couple of minutes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe La Razón meets ORGDEPTH. I'm less sure about El Correo, but like risbel I am more concerned about ORGIND in their case (though El Correo might be better than risbel RS-wise generally). While I can't find anything other than the January press release, which those two articles seem to have additional content to (about the launch event, etc) they still read like content taken (perhaps paraphrased) from press kits rather than organic, intellectually independent coverage. Would rather kick it to RSN, though would not terribly object to this actually being closed as no consensus either. I would expect to renominate this (after some time of course) if that happens though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing I'm a bit concerned about is the language. It is clear that they are trying to sell Hypelist. It honestly sounds like a pitch to investors more specifically, they establish the credibility of the creator, describe demographics that it was made to appeal to, and describe the problem it is trying to solve. These are all pretty reasonable, but at the same time, the language is overly positive. Hart isn't just a singer, she's a talented singer. In Grazia, they describe the creator as well-trained, but they don't give any information in the quote. There are a lot more situations but their easy enough to parse through where I dont think I need to go over it more. ✶Quxyz✶ 13:45, 6 June 2024 (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 which does not preclude a potential merger. Whether it's a weak keep or a N/C is moot as consensus to delete the content isn't going to emerge from this discussion and input has tapered off. If a SNG needs deprecating and that happens, this can be revisited sooner than the typical AfD timeline. Star Mississippi 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Hinterdobler

Magdalena Hinterdobler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This soprano has not received significant coverage in independent sources, bar this one article.

Citations 2, 3, and 7 are from institutions with which Hinterdobler has been associated. The rest provide insignificant coverage, often not more than a half-sentence.

As there is only one source which is both independent and provides significant coverage, the relevant notability criteria (WP:BASIC/WP:MUSICBIO) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I spent about an hour trying to find WP:SIGCOV prior to this being taken to AFD. You can see my comments on the nominator's talk page as we discussed this before taking it to AFD. I looked at over two dozen critical reviews, and while there are many reviews of the operas she has been in, she is only mentioned in passing or not at all in those reviews. Likewise on reviews of her recordings. The most we get is a single sentence (two at most; and those are rare) with a general critique of her performance. For example, The Guardian review only mentions her name in the title list of leading singers but never actually talks about her contribution to the recording. This is not in-depth. The only in-depth independent source is the first source cited, Opern News magazine article. If a couple more sources of this latter kind are found that would prove WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV are met. Please ping me if sources with in-depth independent coverage are located and I will gladly change my vote to keep.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SINGER #6 "having performed two lead roles at major opera houses." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is that SNG, but I honestly think that we need to deprecate that in the same way that the RFC on WP:NSPORTS deprecated many of its similar SNG language. We really shouldn't be building articles on singers that can't meet WP:SIGCOV for verifiability reasons; particularly on BLPS per Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES.4meter4 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion that that SNG should be deprecated does not mean that that SNG no longer applies. What is not verifiable about this article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that SNGs don't apply. SNGs by their nature often contradict other policies, which is why they are often contentious at AFD. It’s perfectly fine to make a claim to notability using an SNG. It’s also equally fine to criticize the SNG for being a bad policy because it doesn’t align with other policy language elsewhere. There have been many RFCs over SNG language, and several of them have led to policy changes that have→ deprecated certain SNGs within the the last five years. I think it’s reasonable to point to those RFCs as an example of how in certain content areas we have moved towards requiring more in-depth coverage. The need to re-examine our policies only gets established if people start raising that issue in discussions at AFDs. That’s what happened in the NSPORTS case prior to the NSPORTS RFC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are allowed to criticize SNGs, but your opinions of the SNGs are not valid reasons to delete an article passing it; neither is the fact that other SNGs being deprecated sufficient reason for overriding this currently standing and completely valid SNG to delete this well-done article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11 Not true. Per WP:SNG "Articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Those calling for deletion are making a valid argument that this particular article lacks adequate sourcing. The main issue of contention here is whether a bunch of low level not in-depth coverage constitutes "adequate sourcing". Those of us voting delete are specifically making the argument that it does not constitute adequate sourcing, which is a valid reason to override an SNG per SNG policy.4meter4 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May be, not required to be. The guideline was never intended to get rid of well-done articles like this. In what way is Wikipedia benefited by deleting here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, this is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON where the subject is likely to prove notability in the future, and we have simply jumped the gun and created an article before the independent sources have come into existence that contain in-depth coverage. I think it's best practice to wait to write articles on BLPs when we have a minimum of two in-depth sources for a variety of reasons; many of them articulated at WP:NOT, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:BLP, and WP:OR. One of the major issues in this article is that the majority of the biographical content is cited to PR materials written by talent management and PR firms for theaters, opera houses, etc. It's not best practice to build articles on BLPs from materials of this kind. We do the encyclopedia a disservice when we don't uphold quality standards that emphasize building biographical content within biography pages from independent materials. Not doing so, allows wikipedia to become a tool of promotion for talent management and PR firms, which ultimately creates a conflict of interest between wikipedia's goal of building an encyclopedia, and the potential to use wikipedia for other motives. One of our best means of quality control in terms of both verifiability and maintaining NPOV is making sure we build articles from independent sources with in-depth coverage. That's why we have WP:GNG. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, only six of the 21 references in the article are from Hinterdobler's opera houses? What parts of the article are not verifiable or original research? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and they also are the most used sources, which verify over half of the article including almost all of the biographical information. The other sources only verify specific roles in specific opera performances. Asserting "only six" doesn't actually look at what information and how much of that information is coming from those non-independent marketing materials. If you can't see the ethical problem here for using marketing tools to verify a BLP article I don't know what to say further. We have two very different ideas about the ethics of editing and sourcing articles on BLPs.4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also briefer mentions that are not mere listings of who sang which role: "eine resolute, selbstbewusste Eva" (a resolute, self-confident Eva); "auch die 'kleinen' Walküren ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, die auch die Gutrune sang, ... sangen ansprechend" (the 'lesser' valkyries too, ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, who also sang Gutrune, ... were equal to their roles)—this compressed Ring is also not in the article. I suspect there are similar short reviews of her performances in other magazines and newspapers, and the article isn't reflecting that coverage because of a desire to focus on her leading roles, use English-language sources where possible, and / or avoid negative coverage. From the point of view of notability, however, I believe that mass of small stuff about her, together with at least one extended biographical article (I don't see the Frankfurter Allgemeine cited anywhere; has anyone searched there for coverage of her joining the company?), puts her over the top. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst can you please identify more than one source with "significant coverage" to meet WP:BASIC. The whole point of the nominator is that there is only one (not multiple sources) with significant independent coverage. Both Yngvadottir and myself have confirmed this is the case which is why I voted delete. Yngvadottir was able to locate several reviews mentioning the subject in one or two sentences but specifically stated they didn't contain significant coverage. Asserting that BASIC is met is just not true with the current sources in evidence. You are the only commenter here asserting BASIC is met, and you have provided no evidence to substantiate that argument. Basic states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] Please produce a second source with significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The next section after BASIC reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. and A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. You do not need coverage to prove notability, you can meet a subject specific guideline instead. Dream Focus 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You don't need to repeat yourself Dream Focus. I am aware of the SNG guideline. That still doesn't change the fact that BASIC isn't met which is why you yourself made an argument based on criteria 6 of WP:SINGER. That's fine if that is the WP:CONSENUS opinion. I personally am of the opinion that criteria 6 of SINGER is a poor predictor of notability, runs afoul of WP:BLPSOURCES policy, and is so subjective in its meaning and interpretation that it isn't a well crafted policy. After this AFD closes, regardless of the outcome, I am considering creating an RFC along the lines of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability which deprecated similar SNG language for athletes. In my opinion BASIC should be our guide. We need at least two sources with in-depth independent coverage to build an article on any BLP in my opinion to meet the spirit of our policy guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale stands and we disagree so please observe WP:COAL and I will do the same. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer. Please consider the evidence and strength of the arguments in your close. I strongly urge you to ignore/overrule arguments made without supporting evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject specific guidelines exist for a reason. Someone can be notable for their accomplishments, not just for media coverage of them. WP:SINGER #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. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03s64z1 distinguished Austrian pianist Rudolf Buchbinder, in London for a rare appearance at the Royal Festival Hall, and the rising star conductor Lionel Bringuier. Pianist Mark Swartzentruber will perform live on the show, ahead of his concert at Kings Place tomorrow. So she is in an ensemble that contains a distinguished pianists, a conductor called a "rising star" in an opera review, and a guy with his own concerts and notable accomplishments. http://markswartzentruber.com/biography/ She was on an album that got a long review. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/feb/14/bruch-die-loreley-review-andrew-clements She is a member of the Frankfurt ensemble, a notable ensemble which she has performed at major opera houses with. https://oper-frankfurt.de/en/ensemble/ensemble/?detail=1256 So a singer can be notable for having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. She performed as Elisabetta in Verdi's Don Carlos Dream Focus 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just added another RS and performance. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although there is some LOW-level coverage, there is not enough SIGCOV. Performing with a notable ensemble doesn’t automatically provide notability in its own right to an individual. - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Oper Frankfurt: Coverage seems to be too trivial to have an article about the individual, but they do seem notable in context of the opera company. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b I would disagree with that assessment. There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of more significant singers with biographical entries in music encyclopedias that have been resident performers at Oper Frankfurt during its nearly 250 year long history. If we were to look through the Großes Sängerlexikon for example or The Grove Book of Opera Singers I would imagine we could compile a list of more than a thousand singers who were at one time or another employed by Oper Frankfurt as a resident artist; and all of those would be encyclopedic by virtue of being in an encyclopedia. If we are going to start covering indiviudal singers in an opera company article it should be the most prominent ones. Hinterdobler is a rather minor figure from an institutional point of view, and currently the article doesn't talk about any of its artists from a historical framework. It would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. A company like Oper Frankfurt at any given time employs close to a hundred leading singers in a season (Currently there are over 90 leading performers with the company between resident and guest artists) They have over 20 operas in their repertory for the 2024-2025 season between revivals of older production and their plans of more than a dozen new productions. Focusing on a single leading artist, particularly one with little coverage, seems inappropriate; particularly when many of their other artists would be high profile artists with lots of WP:SIGCOV. I note that many of the singers currently employed by them have articles, as well as lots of past performers. 4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has received positive critical comment in at least two recognized sources. Further searching in the German press would no doubt reveal more.--Ipigott (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Keep (not familiar with opera, hence not a "solid" keep). Appears to meet the music SNG (which itself should be sufficient, otherwise such criteria are useless) and the nom admits there is already significant coverage. Not to mention the article looks pretty decent – and NBASIC also states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I added a magazine review to the article. I think we have enough to show that the person is notable and I agree with BeanieFan11 regarding NBASIC. I came here from following the article at DYK. I was the editor who promoted the nomination DYK Bruxton (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am the first author, and I don't care if this article is deleted or not.
    • I was pleasantly busy over the weekend, - sorry for being late to this, and thank you all who added to the article!! (That sort of collaboration is Wikipedia as I like it.)
    • My first indicator of whether a singer is notable often is - as you will guess - my own first-hand personal opinion, for this one as for many others. I hope that everybody who has commented will have listened to her speaking and singing, Der Traumgörge. I saw her (only) in that opera, which was sort of a premiere because the conductor says it was the first unabridged rendering of Zemlinsky's music which had been due for performance (and rehearsed) in 1907, but was not given then for anti-semitic reasons, so had a late premiere in 1980. The only other of "my" singer articles suggested to be deleted was Johannes Hill (so I guess my opinion was right so far).
    • I didn't know WP:SINGER but thank Michael Bednarek for pointing that out. It supports my thought that our view on notability should perhaps rely more on what a person factually does (primary), than what others think about what she does (secondary). - For comparison: just imagine we'd require a contemporary review for Bach's cantatas, we'd have an article about one of the around 200 extant. They remained mostly unpublished and unnoticed for a century after he died. - What she does - two leading roles at a leading house - is objective, what others write about it is subjective, and whether we regard what they write as in-depth or not adds another layer of subjectivity.
    • In this particular case, I looked if sources supported my opinion that she is notable, and found enough to nominate for DYK, and obviously enough for the reviewer and for most of the readers that day. I simply had no time to look further for more facts and other sources, sorry about that but it happens with my focus on recent death articles and Bach's cantatas that turn 300 week after week (and real life, Bach cantatas in concert and the pleasant company that comes with it), so I again thank those who did that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ps: I went to church yesterday to one that was also up for deletion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responses:
      • @Yngvadottir, thank you for retrieving sources. You asked for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: sorry, it was hidden under FAZ (Brachmann, Jan (27 February 2024). "Ein Lichtgedicht". FAZ (in German). Retrieved 5 March 2024.) Sorry, I thought FAZ is easier than all that German, and would say BBC, not British Broadcasting Corporation. The reviewer wrote about her singing in a half-sentence at the beginning "frisch, schön und so vorbildlich textverständlich" (fresh, beautiful and with such exemplary diction). I can add that to the article. As for the Mozart reviews, I never saw them, and Mozart seems to be past for her vocal development; her voice was possibly never ideally suited for singing Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) - I added that review, and also the Chrysothemis review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @4meter4, I added the Clements review of Die Loreley. I am not surprised that the reviewer of a first recording of an opera by a famous composer deals more with the opera than the singers. The review proves, however, that the recording was noticed internationally. - I have no idea why you'd mark what opera houses say about her - typically just a factual list of roles - as "promotional". The Chemnitz bio had a quote from a review. I added the complete review now. But why would you believe the same quote in the Chemnitz bio was promotional? Again, this review (Spinola) of a world premiere deals more with the piece than the singers. It describes her lead role at length. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Gerda Arendt I already wrote this to you in another discussion. I will copy paste it here: "All work products/publications by a performing arts organization are intended as a tool of promotion as well as a tool for information. Opera companies/theatres are businesses and they have an invested interest in promoting their company/theatre and its performers in order to sell tickets. There is a commercial aspect to the performing arts, and the materials that an opera company/theatre produces for public consumption are directly connected to its commercial interests. This is why we should avoid using sources produced by theatres/opera companies as much as possible. Artist bios are written by paid talent management and PR companies. Most professional singers have a paid agent who specializes in marketing opera singers, and those agents often write the bios hosted on theatre/opera company websites. Or the opera company/theatre itself will have an in house PR/marketing staff member responsible for writing those materials. There is therefore, a direct COI with these kinds of sources because they are written as a marketing tool for commercial gain. When possible, its best not to use PR materials of this type for ethical reasons." If an artist is notable, we shouldn't need to use these materials because the independent significant coverage should be there to source the article.4meter4 (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I already responded in that other discussion and also copy paste here: "I don't know what you normally read, but I see that Oper Frankfurt and Hessisches Staatstheater write their own bios, and their own high-class program books. - German opera houses in general are public institutions, financed mostly by tax money."
        Adding: what in the following Frankfurt bio is promotional and not ethical to be used?
        "Magdalena Hinterdobler, who sang her first Evas in a new Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg at Oper Frankfurt last winter, joined the Ensemble in the 2023/24 season ..." (cut 14 June, read in source)
        Not all of this is even used, because I don't like lists of famous orchestras and conductors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Gerda I'm not going to get in a back and forth. Wikipedia's policies on COI, non-independent sources are well articulated on multiple policy pages. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour isn't helpful.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I am just trying to understand. Simple question: that Ring in Leipzig - the review says she sang "a minor valkyrie" and "Gutrune". The Leipzig Opera has the full list of the cast, and is - to my knowledge - the only source for the fact that she was "Ortlinde". The source is used only for that detail but you tagged it as promotional. Should we therefore omit that detail, loosing precision? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Michael Bednarek, thank you for the reference for year and place of birth, dated 2008. I used it for more detail but it was marked promotional. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • 4meter4's objections, in this case, to material in a program booklet by a public broadcaster are in contradiction to WP:RS. If reliable sources collate an artist's performance data, Wikipedia editors are free, and indeed encouraged, to use that secondary source. That's a widely followed and uncontroversial principle. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Information published by one's employer (the theatres at which she has performed) is most certainly not independent coverage. The theatre's website or publicatons can be cited to show that she actually performed a role there, but they should not be cited for the theatre's opinion of her performance, as they have a conflict of interest in that they want to promote themselves by promoting their performers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct, but no opinion or assessment was cited from those sites in this case. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm persuaded by the additional sources Yngvadottir located and analyzed as well as by the WP:NBASIC guidance that BeanieFan11 pointed out: multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. While there is the caveat that this coverage should not be trivial, I don't think it is in this case, based on the measure of trivial coverage provided in the notability guideline (the bare mention of Three Blind Mice), as the coverage identified through this review process examines and weighs the tropic's performance quality. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that measure is supposed to be an upper threshold for "trivial", as you imply, then the book-length coverage from the second example must be the lower threshold for "significant"... JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to imply the Three Blind Mice example is the upper threshold for trivial mentions (it's possible for coverage that is more than the Three Blind Mice example to still be trivial; a hypothetical In college, Binton Krill was in a band called Five Eye Lice. Five Eye Lice toured the West Coast in 1988.). I nevertheless think there's sufficient coverage that rises so above the Three Blind Mice example to the point that it's not trivial coverage. As for lower thresholds, I don't think there's consensus in the Wikipedia community for book-length coverage to be considered a lower threshold for significant coverage. With the exception of, say, multivolume biographies/histories, book-length coverage probably tends to be expected to be the upper threshold/expectation for significant coverage. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm just not convinced that a couple sentences of praise here and there in reviews really contributes to BASIC, let alone constitutes SIGCOV. Such brief descriptions of performances are absolutely routine in theater reviews and offer no evidence the subject has received sustained secondary coverage. We should not be constructing biographies out of 80% non-independent sources and 20% disjoint quotes on isolated performances -- how can we capture BALASP if separate pieces of information have not been independently contextualized with each other? JoelleJay (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now this looks like No consensus as editors are very divided about whether or not notability is established by the existing sources. I notice that a great deal of new content and new sourcs have been added since this article's nomination; a source review of this new content would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 18 May 2024 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Ahmed Malhi

Farhan Ahmed Malhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This actor-cum-model does not meets WP:ACTOR as I am unable verify their "major roles" in TV shows as require by WP:ACTOR - nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He is a well known actor. His roles in dramas has received coverage. His education and how he started his career is mentioned.[6][7][8](BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    • BeauSuzanne, Your comments sound like WP:ATA. These coverages can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG. Can you provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not talking about Wp:V. I am saying that three souces meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG plus his dramas are also written in it.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    • BeauSuzanne, As the creator of this BLP, you were supposed to provide three best coverage in order to meet GNG. Unfortunately, you haven't done that. The coverage is mostly interviews, which aren't independent of the subject. Such coverage cannot be used to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: some of his roles (in the main cast) of notable productions appear to have him meet WP:NACTOR, which is the applicable guideline. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:49, 26 May 2024 (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. Partially based on a lack of cogent response to the source analysis table and its findings. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Kings Obi

Unique Kings Obi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG or any related SNG. Sources are either passing mention, primary or not independent of the subject. The only sources that give SIGCOV are obviously promotional paid puffs and connected to the subject. The Vanguard piece [9], and the Independent pieces [10], [11] are examples. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Subject is a notable figure in Nigeria and has enough sources to prove this. The passing mentions for were added to as an evidence to a sentence. The references about the African Creators Summit were also added to evidence the information that he is the founder of the summit Mevoelo (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per WP:NGRS these sources are considered generally reliable: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Vanguard is considered generally not reliable, but with all these subject would meet WP:BASIC.Hkkingg (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you consider this or this a good source, then I’m afraid you do not know what a good source that is suitable for Wikipedia is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: Per nomination above. ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє] 09:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aviram7. Why is this a speedy delete? Which WP:CSD criteria does this meet? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Novem Linguae: Hello, I use XFD Partipcaition tool for vote on here, I simple tagged for delete but I don't known how add delete before speedy sentence, and I know all WP:AFD discussion who are currently open they will be closing after 1 Week and I fixed this issue. Happy editing!ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє] 05:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Thanks for clarifying. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Below is source assessment of the sources cited in this article;
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://tribuneonlineng.com/unique-kings-obi-makes-it-top-5-list-of-talent-managers/ No This is more or less a vanity list No Even though Nigerian Tribune is reliable per WP:NGRS, What's journalism without bylines? ~ ✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/01/01/championing-collaboration-the-inspiration-behind-the-african-creators-academy/ No This is obvious from reading the piece No Even though This Day is reliable per WP:NGRS,What's journalism without bylines? No This doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV on him, rather on "The African Creators Academy" which in itself is still really not a significant coverage ✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/business/domestic/nigerian-creative-industry-launches-the-african-creators-summit/xgzd2dd No Pieces from "PULSE MIX" are usually promo puff, paid advertorials etc. No per WP:NGRS No Of course not, this is more or less a coverage on "African Creators Summit" and not Obi ✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/01/lasisi-unveils-as-host-for-african-creators-summit/#:~:text=The%20organizers%20of%20the%20African,January%2025th%20and%2026th%2C%202024. I will not assess the independence of this source since it does not apply to Obi ~ Publication is marginally reliable per WP:NGRS, but this piece lacks a byline which renders the whole piece useless here on Wikipedia. No Just like Pulse Nigeria above ✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/01/meet-unique-kings-obi-talent-manager-digital-marketer/ No Obvious paid advertorial, promotional puffery No Ditto Yes ✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/04/08/the-future-of-the-nigerian-content-industry-a-conversation-with-unique-kings-obi/ No This is an interview published in a way that makes it read like a news piece. The headline says it all "A Conversation With Unique Kings Obi". "When asked about", "Obi points out", etc. No Ditto No This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi. ✘ No
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/content-distribution-in-the-digital-age-unique-kings-obis-approach-to-reaching-global-audiences/ No Promotional puffery and paid advertorial. No Promotional puffery and paid advertorial. No This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi. ✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/top-5-talent-managers-nurturing-success-in-entertainment-industry/ No This is a duplicate publication by Nigerian Tribune that I assessed first, so, Ditto No Ditto ~ Ditto ✘ No
https://independent.ng/unique-kings-obi-paving-way-for-digital-talents-to-soar/ No Promotional puffery and paid advertorial. No Promotional puffery and paid advertorial. No Promotional puffery and paid advertorial. ✘ No
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/music/211256-okiemute-ighorodje-emerges-winner-mtn-project-fame.html?tztc=1 I am not going to assess this source as it is reliable but does not apply to Obi Ditto No Ditto ✘ No
https://independent.ng/solvent-digital-moves-to-better-customer-service-relationships/ I am not going to assess this source as it does not apply to Obi Ditto No Ditto ✘ No
https://techcabal.com/2024/01/19/african-creators-summit-2024-countdown-to-africas-foremost-creative-workshop/ No Pieces by "Partner" from TechCabal" are usually sponsored/paid advertorials. In fact, this tells the whole story of all the sources used in this article. No Sponsored contents are not considered reliable No This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any comment to the source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Thank you to Vanderwaalforces for the detailed source analysis. I looked at several, all of which were so clearly biased that they are worthless. When the sources are so promotional, it's no surprise that the article is too. Toadspike [Talk] 00:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Bangalore

AfDs for this article:
List of songs about Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous AFD was a mass nomination that ended in keep, for many reasons, except for the article's actual merits. Because there are none.

The deletion reason is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad, Madras, Oslo etc.: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral None of these songs have their own articles, but some of the people singing them do, and the films they are in do as well. Dream Focus 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a notable subject. The list shall never end. Shankargb (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No articles for any of the songs, no article for this topic. Nate • (chatter) 17:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the same reasons prior discussion closed as delete. Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 28 May 2024 (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. ✗plicit 05:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Vee

Aida Vee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of notability. little to no 3rd party articles detailing artist Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 20 May 2024 (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Amended close. After discussion on my talk page I amend my close to no consensus on Piano Sonata in B minor and redirect to Sonata in B minor for Violin Sonata in B minor. As was pointed out to me, the rationale offered for the piano DAB did not apply to the violin DAB, and my close is modified accordingly. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violin Sonata in B minor

Violin Sonata in B minor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This disambiguation page is redundant of Sonata in B minor, which was originally at this title before a page move. The redirect was then reverted. The two sonatas listed here are already covered at Sonata in B minor (a broader disambiguation page). Additionally, one of the sonatas listed here (Sonata in B minor (Atterberg)) is only a partial-title match because it is generically for strings, not solely for violin. I propose restoring the redirect. I am also nominating the following page for redirecting as well since it is also redundant:

Piano Sonata in B minor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) voorts (talk/contributions) 19:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. None of them is a duplicate of another. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that they're not duplicates, but they are redundant. Additionally, as I noted, the Violin Sonata DAB page contains just two entries, and one is a partial-title match that's already covered at Sonata in B minor; I've also reorganized the broader DAB page into sections. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I still think that the Piano one is needed and I therefore do not mind the violin one. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (But the latter could be a simple redirect maybe). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just have the piano one redirect to Sonata in B minor § Piano sonatas in B minor? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because /Sonata in B minor/ primary "super-topic" (in which, Liszt's one is obviously the most notable, ie the primary topic) are the Piano ones imw. Rephrasing: when one searches "Sonata in B minor", it's a piano sonata one is most likely searching, and, very probably, Liszt's, so that it is clearer, in my opinion, to have the piano ones on one page (with a See also for the sonatas for other instruments). I hope I am making sense. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically you want to merge Sonata in B minor into Piano Sonata in B minor? If that's the case, I don't see why that's necessary, since the current Sonata in B minor page accomplishes that. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Liszt piece is the primary topic, then Sonata in B minor's intro can be rewritten as follows:

    The '''[[Piano Sonata in B minor (Liszt)|]]''' was completed by Franz Liszt in 1853 and published in 1854.

    '''Sonata in B minor''' may also refer to:

    Since all of the non-piano pieces have an article title with "Sonata in B minor", they should not be in the see also section of the piano DAB page since they are valid entries on the more general DAB page. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: I do not wish the non-piano instruments individual articles mentioned in the See also section of the Piano sonata DISAMB, my phrasing was misleading, sorry, just the Disamb page for sonatas for other instruments. Having two (or three) DISAMB pages seems at least as good as having 1 in the present case. Hence my K !vote.
    If you wish to restore the REDIR for the Violin one, why not? but again, I'd rather have a Piano DISAMB and a General DISAMB.
    Even regarding the Violin DISAMB, the violin/harpsichord sonata (in B minor) BWV 1014 is sometimes referred to as "violin sonata in B minor" (a misleading but common wording for sonatas for keyboard+ x instrument, when they aren't sonatas for x solo) and could be mentioned there (hence 3 articles). Anyway, decide for the best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get what you're saying. I still think it makes more sense for readers to have one DAB with everything in proper sections, rather than multiple DAB pages. This would also things easier to maintain for editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect both to Sonata in B minor. There's zero reason to have two different DA pages which include identical subjects. One unified DA page dovetails better with WP:Disambiguation guidelines than multiple redundant entries. BusterD (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2024 (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 Nuyorican. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuyorican rap

Nuyorican rap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. Unreferenced so I am not proposing a merge, though a redirect is a possible WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article on Nuyorican rap should be considered carefully before nomination for deletion, as it addresses a unique and influential subset of hip hop culture. However, the decision should also weigh the availability of verifiable sources and the overall notability of the subject as per Wikipedia’s guidelines. --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Didn’t want to substantially rewrite what is here, since that’s a big change, but the added sources and the general coverage of the issue indicate that “Nuyorican rap” is interchangeable with “Nuyorican hip-hop.” This might be worth noticing in the body of the article, and is definitely worth keeping in mind when looking for other sources to continue improving this article. “Nuyorican rap” didn’t return as many solid sources as “Nuyorican hip-hop,” possibly due to the fact that the apex of the genre was the late 90’s, early ‘00’s, when hip-hop was a more commonly used term. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk)
  • Redirect to Nuyorican. The refs aren't here to support the article. Desertarun (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see no consensus here, even on a Redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 21 May 2024 (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.

Music Proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Music&oldid=1225437672"