Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Bands and musicians

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HubbaBubbas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural close. Per Squeamish Ossifrage's prior comments [1]; the bundling here is inappropriate, as the only thing that's evidently in common among these subjects is Singapore. And the nominator's removal of Squeamish's comments [2] violates WP:TPO. If the nominator wants to nominate these separately the first step is to close this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep The nominator is nominating articles based on a false understanding of the guidelines given that local coverage does not preclude a band being notable. Some of the nominations also appear to be indiscriminate. The coverage in any case is national and significant - [3][4][5] and would qualify under WP:BAND. Hzh (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close/Keep All - As recommended elsewhere by User:Arxiloxos and others, I support a quick close of all recent AfDs by User:InspectorMikeChin due to incorrect procedures and misunderstanding of notability guidelines. This includes the following: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lorong_Boys, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Steve_McQueens, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gentle_Bones, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shigga_Shay, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orchestra_of_the_Music_Makers, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HubbaBubbas. Later, each can be inspected for notability if desired by other editors. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In response to Hzh, the coverage does not qualify under WP:BAND on several accounts, if you check the WP:BAND section, the qualifying conditions include the following which the nominated article does not qualify: (3) Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. (6) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a WP:CIRCULAR manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.) (8) Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Based on what is written in the nominated article, the musician(s) discussed within do not seem to qualify for the above three clauses for notability. Please feel free to correct if I am wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by DouglasRosieFan10 (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 20:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Heller

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

All of the article seems to be about the duo she's part of, 'Dresses'. The only thing that's about her is a gossip rumor she started about her more famous friend Melanie Martinez, which is already explained more extensively in her own article. Heller herself doesn't seem to be notable. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have run across another article that included a sexual assault allegation that only took place on social media with no reporting to the law enforcement authorities. According to the WP:BLP team, such things must be removed until there is corroborating evidence from the authorities and from reliable media sources. See also Talk:Dan Spitz. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, minus the criminal allegation (see above) this could very well be transformed into an article on the band Dresses, which may have enough media notice for a stub article. But as is, this individual member of the band has nowhere near enough independent notability for an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreeing with Northamerica1000.Melodies1917 (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable individual. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pet the Dog

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

I can't find any evidence that this band or it's musicians meet WP:NMUSIC. Only independent sources I can find are mentions in local papers about playing at local bars. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. I couldn't find any coverage that meets WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 09:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Krash Karma

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

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

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

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

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

Keep: The second album Straight to the Blood was released via EMI Records, source: [6], Paint the Devil was released via Membran Records. --Goroth (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They even had a lot media coverage in German music press with reviews from Metal.de, Musikreviews.de, Stormbringer.at, Powermetal.de, and other media according to their press kit. They toured Europe and played festivals in Germany like Tells Bells in 2010, see [7]. Here is an interview with the band at The-pit.de. But the article needs to be re-written in my opinion. --Goroth (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Herrera (singer)

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

No links for subject, not even clear if she really exists. There is a Venezuelan designer by the same name who is clearly notable. This one has only one link in the article, which is dead. Karmasabtich (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I initially saw lots of hits using Google, but then discovered that there's a fashion designer by the same name and a Canadian violin and viola player as well. None of the sources I found for this subject help contribute to GNG and presently, the subject doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I must admit, I'm quite surprised that previous contributors to this AfD seem to have never heard of Carolina Herrera before... she is a world-famous designer of clothes, accessories and fragrances. Anyway... the subject of this AfD is far less notable. She's played at WOMAD and at London's "La Linea" Latin music festival (the latter was her Queen Elizabeth Hall gig, mentioned in the article), but playing down the running order at world and Latin music festivals doesn't make her particularly notable. Apart from this there have been some sporadic gigs around the UK and Ireland [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (scroll down to Mary Coughlan's event on Oct 21 to see her mentioned in this last source), but mostly as part of low-key Latin music events, and are little more than event listings. The best references I've found are this one from BBC Mundo (in Spanish) [13] which briefly mentions how she was discovered as a busker, and this review in The Independent of her support slot at a Tania Libertad concert [14]. The worrying thing is that both of these articles are from 2004 (as was her WOMAD gig), and there are almost no credible sources since then, which suggests she didn't become anything more than one of the thousands of budding singers up and down the UK playing the odd support gig, and that fourteen years on from the first media interest in her, she is unlikely to ever be more notable. Richard3120 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: I'm a bit puzzled why Iridescent declined attempts to delete this article ten years ago [15], [16] – perhaps there was the same confusion with the fashion designer. Richard3120 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be because it was an absolutely blatant misuse of speedy deletion, and any admin who'd accepted it would—then and now—be at best admonished and likely stripped of the bit for admin abuse. Notability (or the lack thereof) has no bearing on speedy deletion, which is based exclusively on claims of significance, something Carolina Herrera has performed at numerous venues including the Queen Elizabeth Hall, Ronnie Scott's. Momo's, WOMAD festival, Wexford Opera Festival, Cork Jazz Festival and many other places, venues and festivals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland even meets in the stricter Wikipedia of the present day, let alone the Wikipedia of a decade ago where we traditionally turned a blind eye to puff-pieces provided they were at least reasonably neutral and the subject wasn't utterly obscure. ‑ Iridescent 18:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't realise someone had tried speedy deleting it - yes, you are right, this would fail a speedy or a PROD. Thanks for clearing that up. Richard3120 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Only one reference. Fails WP:GNG. 344917661X (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was able to find an archive of the page on the Wayback Machine, so I replaced the dead link with the archived version. 344917661X (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that 344917661X - there's no indication who the "Andy Morgan" who supplied that information is, whether he was a BBC employee or if it's a user contribution, in which case it wouldn't be a reliable source. Richard3120 (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter that the source isn't reliable since the article is going to get deleted anyways. But thanks for pointing that out! 344917661X (talk) 12:23 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete for failing WP:MUSICBIO notability. Ifnord (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

El Meswy

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

Article has stood for ten years with effectively no references and a borderline promotional tone. Speedy deletion was previously declined, which is why I'm opening AfD rather than deleting it outright. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article as it stands is a complete mess with serious tone issues. I am not seeing third-party reliable source mentions of the subject to meet WP:NMUSICBIO, but there could be some non-English language sources I'm not seeing. If so, it seems like the current article needs to be blown up and started over; there's not much to salvage from the current article other than the list of albums. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is (was) an attempt at promotion by copying website text into WP. The rapper has achieved little coverage beyond routine song listings at MP3/streaming sites. He has been mentioned briefly in Spanish articles about other people or his larger scene (e.g. [17], [18]) but notability is not inherited. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone finds some really good references in Spanish about him – I can't find any online. He seems to be a big fish in a small pond, i.e. a well known name within the Spanish hip hop scene, but it's doubtful whether that scene is very big or notable. As far as I can tell, all his records have been self-released on his own label (the last two were crowdfunded) so he doesn't appear to have caught the eye of anyone outside the local NYC or hip hop communities. Richard3120 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that a horribly promotional article like this has survived for ten years is why we need to have more strongent rules on who can create articles on Wikipedia. It is also why inclusionists are just plain wrong. The more borderline articles we include, the bigger and harder to maintain the project becomes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If notability can be established, a good dose of WP:TNT is required here anyway. Basie (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Klinsmann Coleiro

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

The subject has already been deleted. It was recreated by the subject in question.Continentaleurope (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact the article was re-created by the subject in question, and the style of the writing feels promotional. I would also support salting the title to avoid another attempt at recreating the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fairly promotional tone could be overlooked if there was substantial coverage in reliable sources, but that is not the case. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young Tapz

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Being featured on a single that charted isn't quite enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO#2. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as the article clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO #1, #2 and #8. Harut111 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harut111: His claim to winning an award needs a source and I already explained why criteria #2 is inapplicable. I also doubt the reliability and independence of the two nontrivial sources we have furnished, Complex and Remix Magazine, because of their overtly promotional tone. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as over the past few years there has only been a few mentions in mainstream media and apart from promo's nothing else of note. Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but not enough for WP:MUSICBIO at present NealeFamily (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Changed to Keep as the music award combined with media coverage brings Tapz up to WP:MUSICBIO standard NealeFamily (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mention in a non-related publication would appear to fail SIGCOV and therefore GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone here at least read the 8th point of WP:MUSICBIO? The singer won a major award...why are you even continuing this discussion? Harut111 (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - He did indeed win an award at the 2017 MTV Europe Music Awards, and here is confirmation from some New Zealand-focused sources: [19], [20], [21]. Here is also a fairly solid journalistic piece on him: [22]. A better way to conduct this debate would be to determine if "Best New Zealand Act" at a supposedly European awards ceremony qualifies as a "major" award. One problem is that some news sources on the ceremony do not list that particular award, such as: [23], [24]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject, are the ETVs in the same teir as the awards given as examples for that criteria? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a sourced claim that he won an award and an amount of news coverage. Some of the cited sources ([25][26][27]) are blatantly promotional in at least some portions, are of dubious independence, and should probably be removed. But this and this are both okay, and there's some other usable stuff. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless DerbyCountyinNZ can defend his assertion that all but one of the sources are affiliated (which I honestly wouldn't doubt but hasn't yet been firmly established) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The NZ Herald is not a music-based publication, all the others (at the time I posted) are music-related and therefore not independent of the subject. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what independent means... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add a little to the above, an independent source should be outside the topic (Mr. Tapz) but does not have to be outside the subject (music). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG with substanial coverage in RS. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shivnath Mishra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Seung Ri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete and salt Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Botnari conductor

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

It would appear to me the assertions made in this article simply do not correspond to what can be be verified.

First of all is the assertion that the subject is an "internationally renowned conductor". If that was the case, it would be expected that there would be an internet footprint for this conductor in reliable sources about classical music. As can be seen (Find sources:... ) at the top of this nomination, there appears to be nothing of that sort.
The assertions that the subject of this article has been involved with orchestras and organizations with blue links in the current form of the article similarly are without verification.
The red linked orchestras and organizations - Barcelona Philharmonic Orchestra, British Musician Union - are also of concern. Perhaps they have yet Wikipedia articles?
As for "www.royalmusicsociety.us", it would appear that, most kindly put, it a platform for new musicians to put forward their works. I do not think it is an appropriate external link, let alone a reference for a living person.

Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No attempt to provide evidence of notability. Already salted at Yuri Botnari. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and saltmultiple A7 G11 per user and this doesn't seems better and can we snow close this fast?Quek157 (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, whereas the subject might be notable, the currebnt article has been written by a bunch of COI editors, and I do not see how it can be brought to our standards without being deleted first. If someone wants to recreate the article, it must be an independent user, who will perform a careful analysis of sources, establishing their reliability and independence.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vaultry

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

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

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

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

Undecided - I don't think you can condemn all of the sources in the article as merely podcasts and social networking. The following appear to be reliable and independent of the band: [28], [29], [30], [31]. However those are still fairly obscure and spotty, so I am undecided on whether they qualify as significant in the notability guidelines. But the arguments in Bearcat's nomination may not reflect the situation. On the other hand, if the article is kept it definitely needs to be pared down to verifiable facts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blair St. Clair

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

There is lots of coverage of St. Clair in RS however it all relates to their participation on RuPaul's Drag Race. Article makes claims to notability for WP:ENT and WP:MUSICBIO. Miss Gay Indiana does not seem to qualify for ANYBIO. Seems to clearly not meet MUSICBIO. Think the best case can be made for WP:ENT but given overlap of coverage with Drag Race, is currently WP:1E and so should redirect to season 10 of the show. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please do not delete and just redirect this article back to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10) if there is consensus that Blair St. Clair does not yet qualify for a standalone article. The redirect page clearly serves a purpose. 19:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs)
- "Shantay, you stay" in the form of a redirect, please. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10). As always, people do not qualify for articles just for competing in reality shows they didn't win — while a non-winner can still go on to build notability for other reasons after the show, such as by clearing WP:NMUSIC as a musician or by touring her kitty off afterward and getting GNG-worthy coverage for that, the winner of the season is the only person who gets to have "was on a reality show" be the grounds for inclusion in and of itself. And the WP:BLP1E coverage that the person gets in the context of being on the reality show does not constitute an instant WP:GNG pass either, because every contestant always gets that so there would no longer be any such thing as a non-notable reality show contestant anymore. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when Blair St. Clair (I do declare!) has a stronger notability claim, but just being on a reality show for a few weeks and then sashaying away does not constitute permanent encyclopedic notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I do declare! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RPDR10, just not enough yet. Wouldn't be that surprised to see that the queen meeting notability in 10 years, but not today, as far as I can tell.Naraht (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Season 10. She just isn't famous enough on her own to merit having her own page when queens still on the current season don't have their own page, not even bringing up the topic of contestants from previous seasons not having their own pages either. Charlie950 03:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie950 (talk • contribs)
Redirect to season 10. While I loved Blair (St. Clair, I do declare), she just doesn't have enough notability to have her own page. Hopefully we'll see more of her in the coming years though.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to season 10 per Barkeep49. Meters (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gopika Poornima

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kavita Shah

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

No idea about how she passes our general notability guidelines or any of our subject-specific guidelines. I've no idea as to how this was accepted at AfC. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two albums in Spotify. scope_creep (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria? Dom from Paris (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(jumping in) Presumably alluding to #5: Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels. The record labels are apparently CD Baby and Dot Time Records. If having an article here equates to notability, or if - as it appears - CD Baby is a self-publishing site, it would appear that particular clause is not met. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to aforesaid issues acknowledged and addressed as per edits and citations upon Kavita Shah. Woojy4 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30

May 2018 (UTC)

Clear Keep performances at the Kennedy Center and the Vermont Jazz Center are indications of "having made it" in the Jazz space -- the article is written with sufficiently reliable sources for GNG. Additionally, the newcomer awards further reinforce the GNG case, Sadads (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source that supports these claims throws back a 404 message. Were you able to look at it? Normally newcomer composer awards are not taken into account for notability as per WP:COMPOSER Dom from Paris (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral tending slightly towards delete. Apologies for the lame recommendation - the reason for it, and why I am commenting at all, will become apparent. This article originally came to the nominator's attention when I alerted administrators to the undisclosed paid editing which I saw taking place - details of which are at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Undisclosed paid editing at Kavita Shah. As the article has been nominated for deletion because of that, I feel obliged to comment. Not only was the article recently expanded by the subject's own staff in a not-entirely neutral way, it appears that was also created in the first place by an editor with a similar COI, having been done by an SPI named Kavitamusic. At the very least that makes it hard to make any judgement on the notability of the subject from the article content alone; my view from independent research is that the subject probably does meet notability guidelines but as the genre is not my scene I do not feel well qualified to offer an assessment. However, the real question I have is whether the COI editing warrants blowing it up and starting over and, with no disrespect to the uninvolved editors who have also contributed, it probably is. I would wholeheartedly recommend delete-and-create-stub if I thought it would achieve anything, but the liklihood is the same paid editors would come back and place the same content anyway. So, in practice, cleaning it up and keeping an eye on it is probably all that can be done. I do recommend that if it is kept it is pared back to only the content which is or can be referenced and that what remains is reviewed for impartiality. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Keep (see my comments below) this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. She doesn't quite scrape through #5 WP:MUSICBIO with just 1 album [32] on Naïve Records and as a composer she is not shown to have filled #4 of WP:COMPOSER as the prize is a newcomers prize which is excluded. As a singer there are claims of having performed at prestigous venues but when you scratch away they seem to have been as part of an emerging artists season notably at Vermont [33]. The coverage is too weak to pass GNG. There seems to be only 1 in-depth source that is really a puff piece/interview mix. The other 2 that are 404 links seem to be an events page to back up a claim to having played at a particular venue and a report on having been one of the winners of the newcomers prize. There are no reviews of her performances or recordings. For me it's not quite enough. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete: I don't know why you didn't see about page creator user name. That name was for promotion but don't worried about this. I reported at UAA. And this article must to delete per WP:G5. Also, I don't see any reliable source about this artist. This AfD will be close soon. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 05:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC) (moved to keep)[reply]

Note: I have removed the G5 speedy deletion tag from the article because the user was not blocked or banned at the time they created it. Despite the username the article was created via WP:AFC - but as the nominator said, "I've no idea as to how this was accepted at AfC". Dorsetonian (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dorsetonian: Well, but this article needs to delete because there is no significant source about this person. WP:NMUSIC fails. She had just done two album. Is this enough for WP:BLP article? - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 07:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing as such is not a reason for deletion and neither is autobiographical editing. What is a motif is undeclared paid editing which this is not. The article went through AFC and was cleaned up by some very experienced editors and was accepted as a draft submission by an administrator who has since retired I believe. The article is a borderline case which IMHO doesn't quite make the grade but I don't believe it needs blowing up as it is not excessively promotional. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Dom from Paris :), no. I put the keep based on the WP:GNG standard, which superseeds WP:NMUSIC. Two albums out in the UK, seem to be one out in France, but she is notable. And there seems to be third album in the work as a Duo. scope_creep (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for making that clear. I'm not sure the sources are enough to pass GNG there seems to only be 1 in-depth source and GNG requires multiple sources. The all about jazz is a press release about a performance by the subject. For me it's too weak. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, could be because Jazz and Blues are not as popular as they used to be, although there was a resurgance in Jazz about 10 year ago. That could be the reason that there not much coverage. But I think that three albums means she is an established artist and means she is notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the albums on major labels or notable independent labels? Dom from Paris (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't tell you unfortunately. But two different countries on two labels would indicate a sustained career. Third album as a duet. I don't see anything that is not good here, and it may be WP:TOOSOON, but two albums completed so quickly indicate talent. scope_creep (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your reasoning but it appears that there is nothing based on WP policy in the argument being advanced. We're not here to decide whether the subject is talented enough for an article, or even notable according to some standard we devise ourselves; the criteria for inclusion are laid down for us and I'm pretty sure that neither being talented or having released albums on any label (no matter how many or how quickly) are accepted indicators of notability. Both of those things may indirectly lead to indicators of notability, such as awards or news coverage - but then, some awards and news coverage qualify and some don't, and we would still need to identify them here in order to make a convincing argument. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is the exactly reason we are here. If somebody doesn't have some facet of the psyche that makes them stand out from the crowd, then they we woudn't have WP:BIO articles on here. Talent and creativity are the two primary drivers for the advancement of mankind. And the primary driver for this encyclopedia. Both are prerequisites for notability. Note to Closing Admin Please leave the Afd open, until I can comment further, on Monday. scope_creep (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was sceptical initially, but there's actually quite a lot of coverage out there now. Both of her albums as leader/co-leader were reviewed by DownBeat (I've added the second one to the article). More generally, there are two reviews in The New York Times [34] [35], a review in the Ottawa Citizen [36] and in PopMatters [37]. There's good biographical coverage at Harvard magazine [38] and Berkeleyside [39]. There's also stuff in French on her tour there (maybe someone else can judge how good these and others are [40] [41]). There's also a WNPR piece [42], although that looks largely promotional, so might be best avoided. Including more from the other sources mentioned would be enough for WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria 1 and 4. EddieHugh (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both French sources are more than enough on their own. Jazz magazine and Télérama are very reliable sources. I'm changing my !vote to keep following the above sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this notable singer and songwriter. gidonb (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think I need to comment. I created a large half page rationale, but I dont think wee need it. scope_creep (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite a few of the sources suggested by Eddie Hugh are too focused on the actual album/song etc and fail to cover the actual subject, however there are certainly sufficient that do and thus this is a clear keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the present circumstances. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/noinclude> ·

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go! (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND – Lionel^(talk) 08:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot seem to find any reliable coverage that satisfies GNG. The albums and EPs also do not have any substantial reviews to work off of to create a worthwhile encyclopedic article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XpLo5ioN

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for musicians. I have been unable to locate significant coverage from reliable sources. It appears that the original PROD template was removed without addressing the concern. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This group has done a nice job getting their mixes and videos listed at dozens of streaming sites and promotional social media, some of which are used as "evidence" in the article already. I cannot find anything beyond these and other basic listings of their existence, but existence is not notable. A few sources talk more concretely about the original songs that these guys remixed, but notability is notability is not inherited either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, for failing WP:MUSICBIO. Ifnord (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Finn (actor)

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

The guidelines suggest that an actor should have significant roles in multiple films. Finn may have had a significant role in Freedom Writers, although not a top billed role by any means, but that is about it. The coverage of him is not adding up to indepth coverage, and nothing else comes close to being a significant role. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR. A person with a very hard childhood as reported in the NYT article, and deserving many accolades. But not a Wikipedia article yet. There'll be time. -The Gnome (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable coverage other than the NY Times article. Definitely WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NACTOR TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not meet the WP:NACTOR and the WP:GNG. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 18:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melodie Sexton

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

Ultra-stub article on a singer; I find nothing other than a few Youtube clips about this singer. The only references in the article are to databases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to aforesaid issues acknowledged and addressed as per edits and citations upon Melodie Sexton. Given her notable work as a vocalist and solo artiste with her collaborative works also being prominent upon Billboard Magazine and Oricon's charts as is illustrated within the article. Woojy4 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails on all counts re: notability and proper sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered A7, but decided not to do so due to the Youtube videos. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Due to aforesaid issues being further acknowledged and addressed as per edits and citations upon Melodie Sexton. Woojy4 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Coverage does seem sparse. Maybe there is coverage in Japanese news sources (I don't have access to this). Does Sexton meet WP:MUSICBIO#2 "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart"? "Brand New World" charted on Billboard [43]. Another song, "Through the Fire," charted on Tokio Hot 100 per [44]. If this isn't enough for an article...both songs were by GTS feat. Melodie Sexton. Maybe a redirect to GTS? Thsmi002 (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think GTS has an article right now, and don't know enough about them to create one myself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Due to aforesaid issues being even moroeso acknowledged and addressed as per edits and citations upon Melodie Sexton. Woojy4 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You can only vote once in a discussion. I've struck the other two votes by Woojy4. Of the references added, [45] is somewhat substantial, others are trivial mentions of her. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RKM Legend

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

Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Sources are blogs, sing directories, and PR content pages, Google search comes up with 63 unique results. ... discospinster _talk 19:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be significant coverage in multiple, third-party reliable sources. Most of the citations are to articles that are actually rehashes of press releases, directory listings, and similar material. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability, offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Village Green (band)

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

Fails WP:NBAND - possibly WP:GARAGE. No sources. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the band's sole album Feeling the Fall does have reviews from two reliable sources, AllMusic and Pitchfork, which means it passes WP:NALBUM. But I can't find any further information about the band itself – the note that they had reformed in 2012 and were working on new material was the sole edit on Wikipedia by "Jnallard" (note that the band's leader is J. Nicholas Allard), and there has been no further news since then, suggesting the band broke up again without releasing any further material. In which case, new sources are unlikely to appear in future, and the band's notability rests on finding articles in print media from a dozen years ago, or on their album's notability – if this article is deleted, Feeling the Fall should probably be deleted as well. Richard3120 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I hate to admit it but they may have enough for a basic stub article. Richard is correct that their Feeling the Fall album got some reliable reviews, though that album seems to have been discussed in the media more than the band themselves. They have a basic AllMusic profile here: [46] (though bizarrely, the photo is of the Kinks album of the same name). Here is a brief newspaper introduction: [47]. I won't argue with anyone who votes otherwise, but a brief stub article has some merit, though it needs to be cleaned up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Doomsdayer520. I added the source he mentioned here along with an external link to AllMusic, and I might add more since I'm in the process of a search right now. Nanophosis (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per the uncontested comments to the effect that the sources aren't all that reliable. Sandstein 09:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Girlkind

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

Fails WP:NMG - no charted music Abdotorg (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdotorg: not all the group that debut their song were charted...Road boyz24 (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG as having reliable and independent sources that discuss the subject significantly.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. —Z0 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable? At least 5 of those sources are easily non-reliable, not to mention that they dont discuss the subject in detail (see that second source, looks like fancruft report based on twitter messages), while majority of other sources (kpopmap, allkpop, soompi, kcrush...) are never reliable, see WP:KO/RS. The only reliable sources (probably) in that list are the Indonesian one (but they only mentioned the group in literally one single sentence in their list of debuting groups in 2018, the article is not about the group itself), and that last source, which is not enough to cover GNG. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG...based on all the references it is from the relevant resources such as Naver....you need to read the references first..i know the group is underated but they deserved an article if they have a relevat resources in order to create an article..Road boyz24 (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — there are plenty of other k-pop groups who would easily qualify for articles if you go purely by GNG that sources can be found, but that doesn’t mean they should all have an article when they fail NMG, surely the latter of the two guidelines should be what is more considered as it’s more related to the topic Alexanderlee (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If many potential articles meet GNG without NMG, then it's NMG that should be changed, not GNG. GNG always takes precedence over topic-specific guidelines. Habst (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — no significant coverage yet, just basic press release/advertisement for promotions. Hasn't yet charted anywhere Evaders99 (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, sources listed are either not reputable or typical press-release kinds that you see with any new debut Asdklf; (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Addison

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

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Also fails to meet WP:NPROF and WP:MUSICBIO. In short, nothing exists out there that isn't purely run-of-the-mill coverage of a working musician doing their job. As you can see, I went through all of the possible notability criteria that would apply and examined their thresholds for inclusion - unfortunately none of them provide a reason that this person should have a Wikipedia entry. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not at all notable. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most important period instrument artists of the trombone, Addison clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO criterion no. 6. She was in the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra under Sir Simon Rattle for almost five years, is a founding member of the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment where she also serves as Principal Trombonist, in addition to being a member of the English Baroque Soloists and Orchestra Revolutionnaire et Romantique for twenty-two years under Sir John Eliot Gardiner. Zingarese (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Addison passes criterion #5 per recordings on Philips Records and Decca. Zingarese (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide sources that match the Biography of Living Persons Policy's strict requirements? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her biography at Allmusic and at Discogs, as well as this Guardian piece and BBC article about her playing Elgar's own trombone state that she was in the CBSO for five years, was a founding member (and principal trombone) of the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment (no. 6), and featured in recordings for not only Philips and Decca like I mentioned, but also on RCA, Hyperion, Erato, Decca, and Harmonia Mundi (no. 5). Zingarese (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that just looks like basic verification rather than in-depth stuff. @GorgeCustersSabre: What do you think? It's very very borderline, but if it persuades you, I'm happy to withdraw. Give me a ping. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Exemplo347, yes it's rather borderline. I'll still stick with ~~Delete~~ for now, so let's see what consensus emerges. Thanks, and best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Exemplo347: and @GorgeCustersSabre:, Addison has met two of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO, documented through the independent reliable sources I have listed. Therefore, saying that Addison is "not at all notable" is not true. In addition, I don't exactly think that the AllMusic biography is not "in-depth". Zingarese (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zingarese, I hope you are fine. What you consider true may not be the same as what another editor considers true. It’s best not to try to dictate the meaning you see in any evidence. We disagree over it. That’s my right. It’s not personal. A consensus will perhaps now form and an administrator will make a decision. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GorgeCustersSabre: It was not at all my intention to come off as snarky, and I am sorry if it seemed like I did. However, I have provided the Wikipedia notability guideline for musical artists, and the subject of this article has met not only one, but two of the criteria. Her meeting of this criteria is well documented through independent and reliable sources. I don’t “consider” it true that this musician is notable. She is notable because she has clearly met the guidelines for inclusion. It would be very shallow if I let my personal feelings dictate my stance on whether this article should be kept or deleted. Zingarese (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zingarese. Your courteous reply is very much appreciated. Thank you. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep as WP:Creative. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I incorporated the references given above[56][57][58][59] as well as one more from the Independent.[60] I think she passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources that are independent of the subject. She is known for her research in historical trombones (as indicated by the discussion in the articles above about her research work with Edward Elgar's trombone) and was awarded an Hon.RAM from the Royal Academy of Music in 2002, which may not quite satisfy WP:NACADEMIC but I think it does add a little bit to her notability. I also added several references to verify each piece of information in the article. However, the most strong reason I believe the article passes the notability test is due to WP:MUSICBIO because the subject "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." She was a founding member and principle trombone player for the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment, and a founding member and 25-year player of His Majestys Sagbutts & Cornetts. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm happy to withdraw this per WP:HEY but I'm unable to do so without the agreement of GorgeCustersSabre. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend Exemplo347, yes that would be fine. My concerns have been disproved. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Redirection is an editorial issue. Sandstein 07:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Brehm

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

No notability. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NMUSIC as I can't find any reliable sources that discuss the subject significantly and it does not meet the criteria listed at the music notability guideline. —Z0 (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Monstercat as it was originally created as such according to the edit history. The artist in question has had more releases on the label than any other label she's released with. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:DCB9:4420:8CC7:ECAB (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why it should redirect to Monstercat which has nothing but a list entry about her. Those searching for Laura Brehm are unlikely to look for the label and certainly wouldn't expect to arrive there from the search page. —Z0 (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Guerra

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

does not pass notability guidelines Wolfson5 (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article was already deemed worthy of keeping when it was first nominated for deletion in 2016. The voters at that time concluded that sources were available and what the article really needed was to be cleaned up and expanded. I see no evidence that this conclusion would be any different now. While the article has had clean-up notices for a few years, that is not a reason to delete, per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:HANDLE, among others. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, but needs cleanup.

The vote above was by User:Ortizesp. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guerra passes wp:gng per coverage in independent and reliable sources. Zingarese (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More in-depth discussion needed on notability. The first nomination was a NAC and no one demonstrated how the subject is notable. One of them presented a source which is now a dead link. The main point in the first nomination is WP:NOTCLEANUP and it is also brought up here. It would be useful if the keep voters present some actual sources rather than just say sources exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Z0 | talk 08:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Vote Above: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the more than sufficient coverage set out in either GNG or NMUSIC (sources available either in article or by the list by DarkOrchid - though GDPR concerns will prevent access for some of us) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Young (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR JMHamo (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are his news coverage from Thailand No. 1 newspaper Thai Rath [68] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That link does not show in-depth significant coverage to satisfy WP:NACTOR JMHamo (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the list of news article tagged with his name. Click on any picture will lead to full, in-depth, news article about him. The articles there only dated back to 2009 (so there are many more offline since he started his entertainment career in 1995). You can see there are already 17 articles there just from one newspaper. Other newspapers are similar but tagging system isn't good. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the WP:NACTOR. Check out this opening of TV series KamLaiMas [69] and 7PraChanBan [70] (both are primetime 8:30pm slot of Channel 3, top rating TV channel in Bangkok and number 2 nationwide) should qualify as having significant role. You can see he was featured early in the opening song. Searching further should turn out more works. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He starred in Death Happens. The Thai article lists thirty-six TV works. I'm quite sure that some of them are significant enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: many sources are in Thai, please help translating/veryfing. Death Happens only source is 404.Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, GNG seems to be met (NACTOR would be secondary), but some solid cleanup is in order. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingoflettuce: How is GNG met? Please explain. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lolz u funny, in that same vein shouldnt ur nom have been less vague??? Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that as you can't prove he meets GNG then with Reliable Sources. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I hesitate to engage with your silliness. Do you not see how flimsy your nom is, and yet you hold people responding to your flimsy nom by higher standards?? You either have failed to exercise basic DUE DILEGENCE as per the sources cited above (and also bearing in mind Paul's comment) or you're just trapped in some fantasy of yours. I did not see a point in rehashing whatever has been listed above but on the other hand you definitely NEED to give much more substantiation regarding WHY he fails GNG (and secondarily NACTOR), taking into account all that has been said so far by myself AND OTHERS Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingoflettuce Yes, this kind of behaviour, where AFD nominators make vague calls for deletion and then expect others to do all the work for them is unproductive and rude. It seems to be a growing trend for nominators to use AFD as a place to bully others into improving articles. My suggestion is to provide them with adequate sources and then ask them to edit them into the article. That way you can see if they genuinely care about improving the encyclopedia or just want to score points at AFD,Egaoblai (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could not agree more - what's more disheartening is that the nominator is supposedly a seasoned editor (self-proclaimed 12 years of experience) but the quality of his nom is on par with or perhaps worse than a beginner's. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the past he'd been willing to eat humble pie when called out for his sloppiness. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Keep and ask Thai speakers to improve the references. EnWiki is our largest worldwide project and should not be limited by language barriers. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get some Thai-speaking editors judge the existing sources and/or provide more? Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 04:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scammers (band)

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Article asserts no claims of notability and while the guideline suggests it be a "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works", all I can really see/find is a short section referenced from Impose (magazine) in a past revision. (The page was created by User:Closetgodrecords who was blocked minutes later for a clear violation of WP:ORGNAME.) Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 07:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bandcamp is not a reliable source; that really is the extent of "coverage" devoted to this band which says nothing for GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave McIntyre

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. Apart from a couple of pieces in his own local hometown pennysaver and an article in The Globe and Mail which is about Dave's father, and is thus irrelevant to the notability of Dave because it isn't about him, this is otherwise "referenced" entirely to social media posts, online music stores and PR blogs rather than reliable source coverage. The sourcing here simply isn't cutting it at all, and the article says nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much more reliable source coverage than this. There's a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was created by an WP:SPA named "Maplesyrupketchup" and has since been edited by another SPA named "Dave1010100" — but as always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations venue for aspiring future notables to promote themselves. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a poorly-sourced article on a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 10:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dollshot

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

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

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

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

References currently point to non-reliable sources, falling quite short of WP:NMUSIC. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources include WNYC (the edited website of a major public radio station) that includes a segment of NPR's All Things Considered with a feature on the band, a blog with 11+ years of reviews and relevance to avant-garde jazz in NY, a review by the renowned longtime Village Voice and The Atlantic jazz critic (and recipient of the Pew Fellowship for the Arts). The New Music Box article cited was commissioned, edited and published by a highly reliable third party. The source ESOPUS is an independent publication. These are all major, reliable, independent and non self-published sources that show the notoriety of the band. Additionally, the list of notable venues played shows activity in and around NYC and CA. Artaria195 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]

— Artaria195 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find sources that would bring them over the WP:GNG guideline. It's all a bunch of blurbs or primary sources. SportingFlyer talk 05:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer Additional sources have been added to the article showing notability in prominent music journals, magazines and newspapers. No sources are "blurbs". All are full-length articles, reviews and features. The sources in this article easily meet the WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC guidelines. The feature on WNYC's Soundcheck and NPR's All Things Considered was broadcast nationally and establishes more notability than many other similar pages on wikipedia. The only potential primary source is ESOPUS, but it is fully independent and there are more than enough other sources that are clearly secondary. Artaria195 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]

First, you're only allowed to vote once.

Thank you, noted, I've made the change. Artaria195 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]

Second, looking at WP:NMUSIC, the only prong they could possibly satisfy is #1. I can't find any good sources in my own search. Of the ones listed, three are offline, which is fine, but I can't review them. None of the other ones are good enough. The weekly music roundup and ESOPUS are trivial, they get name-dropped in the Napster top 10 (in which they are 11th), and the Notes from Underground was literally written by the band. There's not enough out there to allow me to give the benefit of the doubt to the three offline articles which all apparently talk about their first album. SportingFlyer talk 23:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below Artaria195 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]

The criteria for #1 WP:NMUSIC is satisfied. The three offline sources are all reliable and significant. The NYC Jazz Record and The Big Takeover both have wikipedia pages with more info if you'd like to review further. The WNYC Weekly Roundup is not trivial; it is a feature, published and broadcast by Soundcheck, a preeminent national media outlet. The Jazz Critics' Poll (now published on Napster) is a highly respected honor in the music industry. The band is included in the list of a Grammy-nominated music critic who organizes the poll, Francis Davis. In both of these sources, the band is featured alongside other independently notable artists. "Notes from Underground" is written by the band, but was commissioned, edited and published by a highly reliable third party. The fact that the band was commissioned to write an article about their music in NewMusicBox further supports notability. Additionally, Dollshot has two albums on Underwolf Records and so would also satisfy #5 of WP:NMUSIC, as Underwolf is "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" (Hampton Fancher, Marco Cappelli, Mauro Pagani, Anthony Coleman, David Tronzo, Ivan Wyschnegradsky, etc.). These facts together exceed the guidelines for notability. Artaria195 (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]

I disagree on all fronts - there is not enough here to show notability - and I'm also concerned about the SPA nature of your account. SportingFlyer talk 04:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Thank you for this discussion (I initially posted the article). Respectfully, I disagree with SportingFlyer and Drewmutt. The article lists reliable and non-trivial sources, and asserting that they are all a bunch of blurbs or primarily sources is inaccurate—there is a distinction between reviews or features from respected music journalists on edited platforms with wide reach and blurbs written by publicists. WNYC, Liquid Culture, and Francis Davis (who, despite writing for Napster at the time, commands a formidable reputation in the world of NYC jazz criticism as longtime jazz critic for The Village Voice and The Atlantic) are clear examples of the former.

New Music Box is the top online publication in the new classical / experimental music world. The New Music Box article was indeed written by the band. However, it is not promotional material—it's primarily about the microtonal composer Ivan Wyschnegradksy and secondarily about the band's incorporating his methods into their process. It was commissioned, edited, and published by a highly respected website devoted to arts criticism and journalism with a very wide readership in new music.

Artists writing about process and influence is not the same as self-generated PR material. Pieces like this are subject to editorial review and would not be published if they did not contribute significantly to the field. The fact that Dollshot was asked to contribute a piece in such a prominent new music space provides evidence to their notability.

True, ESOPUS is not a very significant source. I included it to verify a claim in the article, but if the community feels that it distracts from the overall claims to notability, then by all means the article would be better without it. I would have no problem with a community consensus to delete the source.

Regarding online versus offline sources: WP:OFFLINE states clearly, in boldface type, that there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources can be verified; citing that an article uses offline sources is simply not an adequate reason for deletion.

In summary, these are significant, independent, reliable sources from third parties—not blurbs or primary sources in the usual sense. They are not from the mainstream press, but the band is not from the mainstream music scene. They are, however, quite notable sources in the experimental music culture to which Dollshot contributes. Mae2030 (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Mae2030 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment @Artaria195: You've been here less than a month, and the only thing you've been doing is spam spam and spam Wikipedia with your subject. Additionally, your removal of the deletion discussion template is an indicator that, at best, you may not have enough experience with Wikipedia and its notability guidelines. Combining that with Mae2030's handful of edits, conveniently about the same subject all but proves you two are related in some fashion. I don't see much point in rebutting each of your claims of notability, as they are all quite misled. I suspect your edits are driven by other means than neutrally contributing to Wikipedia. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 16:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drewmutt:, your original motion to delete cited non-reliable sources, and I have carefully addressed that concern in good faith, explaining how the sources—which are neutral, independent, professionally edited, and disinterested—are indeed reliable, verified, independent sources. Again, they are not mainstream sources, but they are quite important in the field of experimental music.

Your response has been to repeat your assertion with no further evidence or reasoning. As a deflection against having to back up your original position, you assert that all of my claims are misled, and you call my motives and neutrality into question. This feels more like a bullying tactic against a newcomer rather than a substantive discussion.

It is true that this is my first article, and that my previous edits—which I used to learn how to use Wikipedia—have been on the Wyschnegradsky page. My area of expertise is microtonal music, which is the point of connection between Wyschnegradsky and Dollshot. This is hardly disqualifying.

Please substantiate your original reasoning for moving to delete—non-reliable sources—and please address why my good faith rebuttal falls short of proving reliability. If my claims to notability are misled, please explain why for each claim. If the article is not neutral, please provide citations to prove so. Simply asserting your point of view should not constitute a valid argument for deletion. Mae2030 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's first completely exclude the NewMusicBox article. It's not only written by the band, but it's not actually about the band, and in no article on this site would this be a source independent of the subject. Next, the WNYC soundcheck is six sentences long - it's not a terrible source, but it's not significant coverage. The Downtown Music Gallery Newsletter appears to be a self-published promotional newsletter for a music store, and the only non-print materials only show they released an album in 2001. The Napster article is also not significant: it consists of one run-on sentence about the band (the other sentence says the top 10 is actually 11) in which it calls the band obscure. It's already been noted the ESOPUS isn't a significant source. Keep in mind a band article must pass WP:SUBNOT, articles based primarily on what the artists say about themselves. Even assuming a couple sources may be significant, this article does not have enough quality sources available to demonstrate notability, and I say this having looked for alternative sources. In terms of the "notable label" argument, the label does not have an article on Wikipedia, and their catalogue on their website yields no notable bands. SportingFlyer talk 22:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we have all agreed that at least some sources are significant. Of the offline sources, NYC Jazz Record and Red Hook Star Revue both have articles about the band. The Downtown Music Gallery Newsletter is a highly respected newspaper within the avant-garde jazz community and features a substantial write-up about the band. Sources like the NewMusicBox article are not meant to be the sole source of notability, but support an overall case for it. Again, one cannot ignore the fact that the band would not have been commissioned for this article had they not demonstrated notability within the field of new music. Each of these sources in the experimental and new music world are "non-trivial, reliable and independent". The fact that Dollshot was featured on Soundcheck is an example of an experimental band crossing over into mainstream music coverage, which again bolsters the case for notability. The prominence of this and the NPR feature clearly outweighs the word count (no other band received more words, this is simply the format of this style feature). At the time of the Jazz Critic's poll, the band was more obscure. As to your point about being #11, I'm not sure why that makes any difference, as Mr. Davis consciously included it on the Top Ten list ahead of a separate "runners up" category. Taken in whole, these sources show coverage from a wide array of major publications in the jazz, experimental, new music and popular music fields. To your point about the label, Underwolf has released work by Hampton Fancher (screenwriter of Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049, actor, director and subject of a highly regarded recent documentary), Mauro Pagani, David Tronzo and Anthony Coleman, all of whom are notable by wikipedia standards and have dedicated wikipedia pages. And they recently published a book by Ivan Wyschnegradsky (who also has a dedicated page) that is available in University libraries across the country. Artaria195 (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]

Please see WP:AADD specifically sections 4.2 and 4.11, where it states: "Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability". Artaria195 (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Hook Star Revue is a concert announcement. [71] The Downtown Music Gallery Newsletter appears to be distributed via e-mail and typically for the purpose of selling records. [72] I cannot find the NYC Jazz Record online. Here's the Underwolf catalogue. [73] it appears the artists in the band are on at least seven of the eight records listed. It simply doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 06:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about the main sources first. If the standard for notability is, per SportingFlyer, whether a source has an article on Wikipedia, we can start with NewMusicBox, John Schaffer's review on WNYC, Francis Davis, and ESOPUS magazine.

Regarding NewMusicBox, I respectfully, but strongly, disagree about excluding this source, for the reasons I have outlined above. It is not band-generated self-promotion, but a curated guest article about a subject of interest to a passionate, specialized audience. It is not all that different from an extended interview response: the band is answering, at length, a prompt provided by an editor, who has decided that publishing their words in full would be of great interest to his/her readership.

The stature of NewMusicBox demonstrates notability of the band, and the subject matter of the article places Dollshot in a unique strain of avant-garde music that reaches back to the cult figure of Wyschnegradsky. It provides crucial context for the band within a highly diverse experimental musical landscape.

Moving on to WNYC, the six sentences expand upon an audio feature that was broadcast widely on terrestrial radio, online radio, and podcasts. WNYC's weekly listenership is 1.1 million.[74] John Schaefer is a celebrated new music critic. All of this is significant, notable, verifiable, and independent.

The Francis Davis article was published on Napster and written in a certain idiom; it includes 11 bands in a Top 10 list to draw attention to the arbitrariness of list-making—we can debate the stylistic merits of the source elsewhere. Davis is a highly respected, award-winning authority in this corner of the musical world; to be featured by him is a marker of significance and artistic achievement.

Inclusion in ESOPUS demonstrates exactly the kind of coverage and attention from third-party, independent, verifiable, neutral sources that Wikipedia seeks. I said that it wasn't a significant source for another reason: it simply verifies a fact in the article—that Dollshot was included in ESOPUS—rather than providing editorial spin. It provides no significant commentary for this article, but it does provide proof of significance, in that Dollshot was chosen by this source which meets the standard of notability outlined by SportingFlyer.

At this point arguing about ESOPUS would be more an argument about improving the article, rather than about deletion.

So we have four main sources from third-party, verifiable critics/editors/platforms that all meet the standards of notability. Plenty of Wikipedia pages have fewer sources than that.

We can nitpick about the other sources (such as Downtown Music Gallery, NYC Jazz Record, Red Hook Star Revue) if we want. This is a specialized area of music. Among specialists, these are important sources and their imprimatur is known. This is not band-generated PR. Record store newsletters and neighborhood alternative papers can wield enormous influence in the avant-garde world. The general public may not have heard of them, they might not have online archives that are easily Googleable—that's totally fine, but not a reason to discount them out of hand. Mae2030 (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misrepresent what I said and what the standard of notability is, which has nothing to do with whether a subject already has an article on Wikipedia: the standard is WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. I simply noted this as a showing their record label is also not notable. As I've outlined above, the sources are not good enough: NewMusicBox isn't independent of the subject, Esopus doesn't speak to notability at all as they just got their track on a CD included with the magazine, and the Francis Davis article literally included one sentence about the band. The WNYC blurb is a premiere of a track from their new album. Again, I can't find other decent sources that would cause me to argue for a keep, so please stop attempting to WP:BLUDGEON the process and let others vote on whether it's notable or not. SportingFlyer talk 16:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is bludgeoning here, and nobody is misrepresenting your points. You began with a blanket statement about the sources which was just not accurate ("all just blurbs and primary sources"), and I have made a patient, good faith effort to provide evidence to the contrary. Mae2030 (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After seeing that Dollshot released two new singles on Spotify, Swan Gone and She, I did a Google search to find their next show and came across this page. I'm new to edits on Wikipedia but felt inclined to make an account and comment, so please forgive me if I don't follow protocol exactly. As a huge fan of avant-garde music, I have seen Dollshot perform a number of times at reputable venues in NYC. Looking through the [WP:NMUSIC] guidelines and the sources cited on this page, especially through my lens of experience with this world of music, it is clear to me that the band is notable. The comments to the contrary in this discussion appear to come from an unfamiliarity with the press in avant-garde and outsider music scenes. I strongly encourage you to support the online presence of this band and other alternative art mediums; it would be a shame to see Wikipedia devolve to favor only mainstream music and media. Nilknarf711 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Nilknarf711 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Artaria195 (talk • contribs).

Delete. SportingFlyer's analysis of the sources indicates that they do not sufficiently support the band's claim to notability. I am also concerned about the trio of apparent SPAs at this AfD - it seems unlikely at best that so many unconnected new editors would flock to this AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The coverage in Soundcheck is a step toward WP:MUSIC notability, but that's the only RS that gives any kind of depth-of-coverage that I can see. Close, but not quite. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curious—how about the NewMusicBox article? It shows the subject curated by a highly visible website that is independent, with no COI or vested interest in promoting the band. (True, of course, it is penned by the band, but it is not a press release or any other kind of self-promotion outlined in WP:IS; the context of NewMusicBox is neutral, and the editors would have commissioned the article because of the band's reputation in the field.) In the small world of new music / avant-garde music, this is a very big deal, akin to a guest editorship or an extended interview. Mae2030 (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated above, the article is not about the band, nor is an article written by any band member for any article independent of the topic of the band. It's not a reliable source for determining notability. SportingFlyer talk 18:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you're repeating your assertions without addressing the argument. Imagine if Rolling Stone asked Frank Zappa to write an essay about Stravinsky's music and its influence on the Mothers of Invention. Such an article would clearly show Zappa's notability; Rolling Stone wouldn't give its pages over to just anybody. Scale this situation down to the world of new music / contemporary avant-garde music, and you've got the NewMusicBox/Dollshot/Wyschnegradsky source. Guest writing or editorship at a prominent publication is a clear marker of notability in the field. Mae2030 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, our primary notability guideline is WP:GNG, which requires sources demonstrating notability to be independent of the subject. The NewMusicBox article is not. SportingFlyer talk 18:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. -- Dane ^talk 04:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some overlooked evidence for notability: WP:NMUSIC states in #6 that notability is achieved if an ensemble contains two or more independently notable musicians. Dollshot exceeds this standard with three of its members. Noah K has achieved notability by meeting #5 through two releases on the highly influential HatHut label, both of which were widely reviewed. (He also has a wikipedia page in German.) Drummer Mike Pride is clearly notable by WP:MUSIC standards. Cellist Kevin McFarland is a founding member of the JACK Quartet, generally acknowledged as the premier string quartet in contemporary avant-garde and new classical music. Mae2030 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - current and additional Googled sourcing fails WP:GNG. The new album isn't even mentioned on Amazon, whereas almost every album I've ever looked up is there, at least as a stub. Dollshot's first album is there, with only one review, FWIW. Noah K's German article is almost completely unsourced, and the German Wikipedia's standards are notably lower than ours. Also, notability is not inherited - so a founder from a notable band can't go to a new band and automatically claim notability. The NewMusicUSA source is more about Wyschnegradsky. Finally, I know there's a guideline that says WP:OTHERSTUFF, which means you can't use other articles' existence to defend unrelated articles, but from a sourcing perspective, I like to see many or at least the majority of sources on Wikipedia themselves. Few of these sources are. The New York City Jazz Record has a stub article, so with one source it may not even survive AfD. The Big Takeover has an article, but it's also poorly sourced, as is Esopus (magazine). There needs to be more mainstream coverage for this to be a keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you TimTempleton for looking in to this more. I respectfully disagree with your points though. First off, all the singles from Dollshot's new album "Lalande" are in fact available on Amazon. Second, Amazon is a store not a source. Anyone can sell music through Amazon, that cannot be a criteria for notability. Noah Kaplan (who more recently began using the stage name Noah K) is a notable musician by WP:NMUSIC. He has been covered many times in all of the mainstream jazz publications (Downbeat, JazzTimes, All About Jazz etc.), has been featured in articles in major French and Italian and Greek music publications and has two albums on HatHut Records which is a major independent jazz label, distributed by Naxos. In regard to Dollshot, the band has been covered in mainstream media by mainstream music critics: WNYC's Soundcheck and NPR's "All Things Considered" are just that. So is the Napster Jazz critics poll, where Dollshot was featured by a very notable critic (Please see WP:AADD specifically sections 4.2 and 4.11, where it states: "Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability"). But mainstream criticism cannot be the only source of notability, as the band is not a mainstream band and functions in a more niche community of experimental music. Is Wikipedia unwilling to look beyond the mainstream media now? The point is that Dollshot has been covered by mainstream and independent press so should satisfy WP:NMUSIC #1. On top of that, the band satisfies WP:NMUSIC #6, as Noah K(aplan), Mike Pride and Kevin McFarland are all notable musicians in the band. Can someone kindly respond to these points before deleting this article? I have made numerous good faith efforts to prove the variety and merit of these sources and have addressed three points in the WP:NMUSIC guidelines (#1, #5, and #6). Many of the arguments made against this article are of the variety "Dollshot is not notable because we say it's not", which does not adhere to the rigorous and democratic standards that Wikipedia represents.Artaria195 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]
  - Artaria195 - I don't see the All Things Considered reference in the article, and don't see it on Google. My rule of thumb is that there should be at least 8-10 reliable sources, of which at least one is a profile in-depth enough to extract some biographical info. I just don't see that here. Ideally that would be a source that says when they started playing, and even what the name means. Absent that, we have no choice but to assume the omission is due to media disinterest. There are some exceptions to such stringent sourcing requirements, particularly with obscure religious figures from the middle ages, and plant hormones, but for music, especially modern music, obscurity that stems from being experimental doesn't help here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - TimTempleton- Here is the link to All Things Considered: https://www.newsounds.org/story/weekly-music-roundup-july-10/. Does Wikipedia specify somewhere that there need to be 8-10 sources? If so, I imagine that would place a large number of existing articles in AfD discussion. But more importantly, Dollshot does have 8 sources. Whether the "Notes From Underground Article" passes muster as a top source is not important here. It opens with an editorial note by a very prominent music writer (who edits the entire NewMusicBox publication) that provides background and biographical information about the band so would fulfill the requirement you stated above. In regard to your other points, to my knowledge, the band has never specified what the word "Dollshot" means; though the Lucid Culture article cited does make an attempt to explain it. The Red Hook Star Revue, NYC Jazz Record, Big Takeover and Downtown Music Gallery (all independent, reliable sources) have additional biographical information. Again, this is all in regard to the band satisfying WP:NMUSIC #1. Dollshot also satisfies #6.
      - Artaria195 The 8-10 is my personal criteria, based on years of editing. Nobody will make that a standard, because there are too many other variables, but it works for me, particularly with CORP and BLP articles. The host for the newsounds link seems to have appeared on All Things Considered, but I'm not reading that this is actually that show. In any case, it shouldn't have to come down to verifying if one single source is or isn't good enough. I'm outside the New York experimental music scene, and never heard of any of the publications, but have edited over a hundred non-experimental music articles. The sourcing doesn't look good enough to me - we'll have to see what others think. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        TimTempleton- Thank you again for taking the time to look into this. Dollshot was absolutely featured on All Things Considered, and by John Schaeffer, an very notable music critic. If you listen to audio link on the New Sounds page you will hear the segment on All Things Considered. The player is also on the Soundcheck page, which is cited in the article. I am not claiming that that is the sole source of notability, but that is another of many sources, and undeniably a high profile source that helps make the case. As is the feature on Soundcheck itself. Whether or not you've heard of the other sources cannot be a criteria for notability either. If one takes the time to verify, they will see that all of these sources are independent, reliable and important in the jazz and experimental music world. Can you respond to the argument for Dollshot satisfying WP:NMUSIC #6? They exceed the guideline, with 3 members of the band (the guideline only requires 2).
        The article makes it seem like there are only two members of the band, neither of which are notable. I have no idea how #6 would possibly be satisfied. SportingFlyer talk 00:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        SportingFlyer - Noah Kaplan has two widely reviewed albums on HatHut Records (fulfilling WP:NMUSIC #5) and has been featured in national and international press. You state that he is not notable, but do not back this up with any evidence. Can you defend this position? Further, Mike Pride and Kevin McFarland are notable as well. If you accept that, then your argument is that the Dollshot article can be improved, not deleted. Both of these musicians are bandmembers, featured on Dollshot's new album. Artaria195 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]
        I do not accept your reasoning. The first sentence in the article: Dollshot is an American indie-pop band, made up of husband and wife duo Rosie K (vocalist) and Noah K (composer/saxophonist). That's two members. The other members are simply "featured on the album," as you note. Furthermore, Noah Kaplan has received press, but you continually overstate his notability. Many of the sources I've seen that come up first are blogs and primary sources "Kaplan performed here." SportingFlyer talk 01:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        SportingFlyer - The article has been edited to better reflect the make-up of the band. Your generalization of sources for Noah Kaplan as "blogs and primary sources" is patently incorrect. First of all, by Wikipedia standards a google search is not enough to disprove notability (Please see WP:AADD section 4.2 where it specifically states that this argument should be avoided). Furthermore, Noah Kaplan meets the notability requirement of WP:NMUSIC #5, unless you want to try to argue that HatHut records is not a notable independent label. Please research this before attempting to argue this point. And lastly, a more thorough investigation of Noah Kaplan will turn up many more sources, but this is all beyond the scope of the current discussion. To reiterate yet again, Dollshot meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC #1 and #6, all of which make it notable by Wikipedia's own standards. No one has yet disproved this, and I and others have made countless good faith attempts to impart unbiased knowledge of these sources and this field according to the guidelines stated in Wikipedia. Please don't just level more accusations without evidence to support them. Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for that matter) is supposed to be about facts, not the opinions of a certain group of self-appointed editors, who state in their arguments that they are not familiar with the field. Artaria195 (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]
        I've put in a good amount of research for this AfD and stand by the case I've made. SportingFlyer talk 04:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree that you've made a case against the sources, or Dollshot passing WP:NMUSIC #6, SportingFlyer, I am willing to accept that your mind will not be changed. Can someone with knowledge in the field of experimental music please review this AfD and properly research the sources, the band and the Wikipedia guidelines before the article on Dollshot is deleted? I believe this discussion got off on the wrong foot-- the initial comment is: "References currently point to non-reliable sources, falling quite short of WP:NMUSIC. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more" which has been disproved with supporting evidence over and over throughout the whole discussion. Most of the "delete" votes simply claim to support the initial comments without even addressing or refuting the arguments, analysis and evidence to the contrary. Many of these votes would not pass WP:AADD, because they rely only on google searches or basically say "delete" without providing any evidence. So far, there does not seem to be a good faith attempt to keep this article, or even to understand the reasons and support contributors to it have provided. If researched at the level that an encyclopedia article demands, the sources will pass WP:GNG, as will the article's claim about the notability (by Wikipedia's own standards) of the band. If an unbiased editor/administrator who is familiar with this field and who has not yet weighed in could please review this article in regard to WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC #1 and #6 before it is deleted, that would be much appreciated. Artaria195 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stereolizza

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

There are no reliable secondary sources about the subject in the article. I couldn't find anything substantial either. Many editors seem to SPAs and the reference section appears to be a case of WP:REFBOMB. wikitigresito (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC) wikitigresito[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikitigresito I think it probably squeaks by WP:GNG, mostly for the unique and very searchable name. But absolutely no justification for the huge page and 46 references. Someone needs to cut all that out. change it to 2 lines about their music and ethnic heritage. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChalkDrawings33: I think you mistook me for nominator, but I am not. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, sorry. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. My mistake ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On-Topic: Could you point me to the sources that make this group pass WP:GNG? wikitigresito (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Krishna Chaitanya Velaga Wikitigresito thank you for your input. I've considerably condensed the article, cleaned up for neutrality, as well as removed all bad references. Hope this helps. Cheers!Sashagb2017 (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure why having a unique name would make this pass WP:GNG, but it doesn't appear to pass, and it doesn't pass WP:NBAND either. Even after trimming down the references, we are left with non-notable radio airplay charts (referenced to a website to avoid per WP:BADCHARTS), links to user-generated content from iMDb and the like to prove the band's songs have appeared in TV shows (no big deal, almost every band in the world has had their music used as TV background music at some point or other), links to the band's website, record company and Amazon to prove you can buy their records, and awards won at a non-notable and dubious award ceremony (you have to pay to enter your video). Just about the best RS I can find is this passing mention in an article in The Guardian, but it doesn't tell you anything about the band at all. Richard3120 (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scene writers

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

Notability has not been demonstrated. Not meeting minimum inclusion requirements of WP:BAND. Fails at WP:GNG too. Hitro talk 12:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: zero participation again
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They have some minor media notice, all of which is already cited in the article, but nothing (except maybe this: [75]) rises above basic introductions to their existence. WP:EXIST and WP:TOOSOON are relevant here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 09:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Ibizarre

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

Non-notable musician. Searches did not turn up the necessary in-depth coverage from independent, secondary reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Aguswiss (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep influential musician covered in sources such as the book Global Nomad and FutureMusic magazine. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "influential" might be pushing it a bit, but the artist is certainly a well known figure on the Ibiza club scene. It's the same problem that all Wikipedia articles about DJs and dance music producers have – it's likely there are articles about him in back issues of dance publications like Mixmag and DJ Mag, but without online copies available, it's very difficult to confirm or deny this. Richard3120 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or optional Redirect or Merge to DJ Awards: A non-notable person. A BLP is held to a higher standard of sourcing. There is one reference that goes to a Google book search result page and the "External links". Unsourced material is considered as original research. Otr500 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bands and musicians Templates for deletion

Proposed deletions

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

Bands and musicians

Bands and musicians Templates for deletion

Categories