Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

WP:DSMUSIC

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Music

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

The result was Draftify‎. This is a WP:IAR speedy close to meet the needs of the creating editor who has realised their error in moving this to mainspace too early. (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanna Finokalioti (Eleanna Fin)

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT means this is the next step unless someone chooses to perform WP:HEY. This BLP lacks sufficient references of the quality required in order to reman here. I am not persuaded that Finokalioti passes WP:NACTOR nor WP:NSINGER, nor WP:BIO as presented. This may simply be WP:TOOSOON. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Television, Theatre, Greece, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please write me in simple engish without wiki links if possible what is the problem now?? When I submitted the article I got a notice for IMDb links...so I replace ALL these links with others...What do I have to do now to keep my article on wiki air?? Georgelgreco (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgelgreco, That information is on your user talk page. This is really not the venue to write you an instruction manual. This venue is for the discussion of retention or deletion of the article. I, and doubtless others, will discuss this with you thereunto here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me tell you this....Eleanna Finokalioti is a Greek actress, singer and performer who works for 5 years in USA with Artistic O-1B visa. O-1B is for: Individuals with an extraordinary ability in the arts or extraordinary achievement in motion picture or television industry. For 5 years USA country believes that she has the right to stay and work as a performer here...So for USA immigration services she is eligible to stay and present her talent and her work...and for Wikipedia she is not eligible to present her work here?? Sorry this is unfair..... Georgelgreco (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also she is an Actor's Equity Union member....I have the proof of that and proofs for whatever I say Georgelgreco (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgelgreco In simple English, you created this situation by moving the draft to Mainspace without it being ready to be an article. Awaiting a further review would have been wiser, when all this would have been worked out with you. I have no objection to a consensus based draftification, but it cannot now be done without consensus. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think I understand what you mean..When I finished with major changes about IMDb links, I had to resend the article for reviewing and not for publishing...BUT I press publish because I read in that page this phrase: If you believe you resolve the problem then press publish... And if you read and check the new links, I replace everything, so I resolved the problem, I think.. Georgelgreco (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgelgreco Then I suggest you create a new line here, and used boldface font for the word "Draftify" and state in ordinary fine "Published by my own error" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Published by my own error Georgelgreco (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR; WP:NSINGER per nom. Created by SPA. No objection to draftification, but doubt a) more sources are to be found (I didn't find 'em, in any case) and b) whether this won't just get bunged straight back into mainspace. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creating editor has stated that they published this by their own error, and requested draftification. As proposer I am about to initiate a WP:IAR speedy close to meet the reasonable needs of the creating editor. I am content if editors with greater knowledge than mine choose to revert this action. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Switchflicker Records

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

It is a PR article created by the company itself as implied from creator's user name. Since Ting Tings was only a client/artist who at one point in their life was associated to them, it's not an appropriate re-direct target. Therefore, the appropriate remedy to this run of the mill non-notable company is to delete. Graywalls (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Sales

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a session musician, and not found references to add. I do not think the existing references demonstrate that he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. There is no obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Tennessee. Tacyarg (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music & the Spoken Word broadcasts

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

Unreferenced list of unclear utility. This is an episode list of a radio and television music performance show in which the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (always the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, never anybody else) performs religious music along with an inspirational/religious sermon -- but this list just goes "broadcast number, date, recording location, title of sermon, production code, the end", with many entries not even containing all of those details, and right across the board even the recording location is always one or the other of two facilities in Salt Lake City, and never anywhere else.
There's no information at all that would actually be useful, such as the titles of any specific songs that were performed in the episode or a detailed summary of the sermon's theme — so there's effectively nothing of any serious substance said about any of the episodes to differentiate one from another. All of which renders it into a list of meaningless and trivial information, and it's also completely unreferenced for the purposes of actually verifying even what little information is here.
There's just no value to this without a lot more information about each episode and actual referencing for it. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Lists, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan White (DJ)

(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)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio DJ and a spinoff article about his purported "television show" that may or may not ever have actually existed, with neither article properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media personalities or their shows.
As always, broadcasters are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage and analysis about them to establish that they've been externally validated as significant by somebody other than their own public relations agent -- but the BLP is "referenced" to one deadlinked unreliable source, one discogs.com directory entry about somebody else who isn't Alan White and one glancing namecheck of Alan White's existence in a newspaper obituary of somebody else who also isn't Alan White, absolutely none of which constitutes support for the notability of Alan White.
And meanwhile, the "television show" article is actually serving primarily as a coatrack for a largely reduplicated summary of the BLP, and not actually saying even one word at all about a "television show" until the very end, when it finally reveals that the "television show" that's posing as the article's nominal subject is "currently in pre-production" -- except it's said that since the day the article was created in 2011, and the article has never been updated since then with any evidence that the show ever actually started airing. And it's also based entirely on unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no GNG-worthy coverage about either Alan White or the "show" present there either.
Nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm getting a headache on this one trying to locate sources. Too many people named "Alan White", and several active in music.4meter4 (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Connecticut, Georgia (U.S. state), Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indra Rajya Laxmi Pragya Puraskar

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Appears to be some type of award but there are no sources which really cover it much less GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Dance, and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for historic reasons. There are plenty of notable people from Nepal who were recognized after getting this award. It has been stopped because of royal name attached to it after Nepal entered into the republic era. Plenty of sources are available if you search in native language (i.e. Nepali - इन्द्रराज्यलक्ष्मी प्रज्ञा–पुरस्कार) nirmal (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hirst

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

Delete – I suggest that the subject is not notable - my WP:BEFORE searches turned up nothing of substance, no reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, Music, Television, Photography, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indication of notability from Google search results. Article has been unsourced since 2006 when it was created. This photoman fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being the "un-named photographer" doesn't meet ACTOR. The rest seems like a resume/CV. I don't see anything about this individual online. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found pretty much nothing online or through ProQuest. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – completely unsourced BLP. Bearian (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – I agree with Bearian. Headhitter (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Jam Records

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

Fails WP:NCORP. C F A 💬 14:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Canada. C F A 💬 14:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an iota of notability. Paid editing is almost certain, but perhaps this is one of those cold call Wikipedia article creation service. Look at all the highly non-notable articles created by the same creator https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/0564401~enwiki Graywalls (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cord Records

AfDs for this article:

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

I am also nominating

Falls short of WP:NCORP. Previously deleted with unanimous delete consensus in 2012. I'm not seeing happenings resulting in coverages in the 12 years since then that puts this company above the NCORP threshold. After it was deleted, it was re-created by a long-term undisclosed paid editor with promotional PR activity involvment. The additional sources with newer dates than the previous AfD are basically "did this..." "released this..." WP:ROUTINE events. Graywalls (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Christianity, and Illinois. Graywalls (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage is all about signings, but not really about the company itself. Fails WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadair Records

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

No significant coverage or anything more than trivial mentions. Frost 02:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are primarily about the record label itself. I couldn't find any coverage on the record label. Oddly enough the only news source I found was on a record shop in th UK that has the same name. Fails WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not get anyway close to passing notability requirement. Sources in the article have single mentions while some did not even mention it all. This fails WP:GNG and whatever criteria used to create this article. Mekomo (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday (musical)

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

The article is entirely reliant on primary sources from Starkid Productions, and a BEFORE yields no significant coverage of this subject, with only trivial mentions of its existence popping up across both reliable and unreliable sources. This is better off redirected or merged to Starkid Productions, the company that produced this musical, as there is no indication of GNG being met with this subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Starkid Productions per WP:ATD. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The best I could find was this review in the student newspaper of Fanshawe College. Clearly not independently notable.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdy Prudes Must Die

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

A search for sources shows no sources from reliable sources; all sources are from blogs or college newspapers, neither of which are reliable. All development information is primary and thus does not indicate notability of the subject. The only third party source that shows notability is the Billboard sales performance, but this is a single source and only covering sales figures. This subject lacks SIGCOV and doesn't meet the GNG, and is better off redirected or merged as an AtD to Starkid Productions, the parent company which produced this musical. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While this is not about the cast album but the show itself (whose cast recorded the show), the cast album did make the Billboard national chart making it pass criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. I also found this additional review [1] Ultimately, the spirit of the WP:NALBUM SNG should apply here. This show charted so we should keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 The review hails from a student-published newspaper, so that one is also unreliable. From a glance at their about page, they don't seem to have a high journalistic standard (Anyone can apply and write for them) so I'm not sure if it's usable at all.

Still, my concern is that the album itself is what's notable here, not the show it's attached to. The show received no coverage, with only the album doing so. Notability for the show is not Wikipedia:INHERITED from the album either: "notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent."

If we were to consider the album separate from the show, and make an article solely about the album, that still wouldn't fly: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Given all that exists for coverage on the album is the Billboard source, there isn't really enough to build a reasonably detailed article beyond a track listing and a line saying that the album ranked #1. No matter what outcome is taken, this subject doesn't have the sourcing to meet independent notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. WP:NALBUM is clear that we keep all albums that place on a national chart regardless of the sourcing. That is the WP:SNG guideline. Period. University newspapers are often used on wikipedia, and are generally considered reliable. They are structured just like newspapers not attached to universities (editorial staff; both student and faculty), have the same legal recognitions under the law as professional journalists, and in this case, are over seen by a nationally recognized school of journalism. There's no reason to question the reliability of the newspaper at Boston University; particularly when its a review of theatre work. Regardless, repurposing this about the album is possible, but maybe not what best serves the encyclopedia. The content would be nearly identical and I don't see the value in differentiating between the two here as cast albums are simply audio recordings of a staged musical. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 I'm a bit confused since I was primarily citing music notability policies with my above argument, barring the usage of INHERITED. "...a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" hails from Wikipedia:NRECORDING, and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" is from NALBUM.

While NRECORDING states that albums charting is an indicator of notability, there's nothing in these notability guidelines that state it's an instant keep. Even ignoring that, my previous argument about an album split-out still stands. There's not enough coverage of the album to be non-stubby and not just a track listing, and the musical itself doesn't inherit notability from the album that charted per INHERITED, as, inherently, the album is a separate subject from the original musical.

It's something akin to (and forgive the oddly specific example, this is the first thing I have off the top of my head) Detective Pikachu (film) and Detective Pikachu (soundtrack), where the soundtrack has individual coverage of its own development, reception, etc; it logically wouldn't include content from the film Detective Pikachu (Such as the film's plot and development) since these two subjects have inherently different coverage and subject matter, and those items from the parent subject would not be relevant to the spin-out and vice versa.

This is entirely an aside here, but is there a specific policy for college newspapers? Last I checked they were generally unreliable since they're typically student-run and edited (Meaning literally anyone can write for them and no one with proper journalistic experience if fact checking.) Perhaps it's different if the editors are entirely faculty with journalistic experience in the field, but given we can't tell what's been edited by a student or faculty member unless they outright say it for some reason, I'm not sure how reliable that would be in the long term. This isn't really me arguing against it and more just me stating my gripes; if this is clarified somewhere else please let me know because I genuinely am not familiar with that policy if it exists. I'm mostly just basing this off how we usually determine reliable sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most university newspapers have an overseeing faculty advisor/editor who works as a part of the editorial team of the paper. That faculty member is always part of the journalism faculty if a school has a journalism school. Sometimes there is more than one faculty advisor, and generally the paper doesn't get published without their approval of each issue. I think you'll find though that universities with respected papers like The Harvard Crimson, The Tufts Daily, The Cornell Daily Sun, etc. are routinely cited across the encyclopedia by just checking the "what links here" section of those articles. You'll see there are tons of articles that wikilink to those pages because they are used as sources on a routine basis. It would be a tough sell to the reliable sources noticeboard to consider a university paper not reliable when it follows the same protocols editorially as a professional newspaper.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 as a general question: How can it be guaranteed that they receive editorial oversight from a faculty member? I know some papers often have their digital content overseen by dedicated student editors rather than faculty outright. This is obviously on a case-by-case basis, but in cases like these, how would it be determined if site content is usable? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pursue that further, I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what they have to say. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep I must agree with 4m4 that the high Billboard ranking gives me pause. Doing my usual source check... Oh hey! Hayley Louise Charlesworth (February 9, 2022). "Nightmare Time and a Case Study for Digital Theatre During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network (Abstract). 15 (1). Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved November 18, 2024.

@Darkfrog24: Do you have another link? That one isn't working, and it would be easier for others if it could be accessed here rather than through Google. I did look this up separately to check, but all that's in this journal are brief mentions that this musical got delayed due to COVID. The paper is primarily focusing on Nightmare Time, an unrelated production by StarKid, so I wouldn't really consider this source SIGCOV given Nerdy Prudes' mention here is primarily a TRIVIALMENTION in the context of Nightmare Time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. I have fixed the link in the article. Here is a link to the article itself: [2]. Here is a link to the Google Scholar search: [3]. As always, I'll defer to people who have read the full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24 I did read the text, and I've mentioned my findings above. Do you have thoughts on this? I'm not sure trivial mentions in a paper about another series entirely really counts as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines + TV Screens Tour

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

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL tour that fails WP:NTOUR. G11 and BLAR has been tried before. Notability-tagged for 11 years. Geschichte (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Ireland, Portugal, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, doesn't meet WP:GNG for an article in its own right and only has a passing mention on the Union J article, so don't think a redirect is necessary. Orange sticker (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lot Fire Records

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

Non notable business. Spam from blocked sock farm who built a walled garden. Lacks independent coverage about it, lots of PR placement which don't satisfy sourcing criterea, lacking independence. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page that just reproduces content from the main page:

duffbeerforme (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Bash Luks and copy edit/trim for encyclopedic tone. While I can understand the need to cleanup after a sock editor with a coi, the referencing in this case is not bad. The articles use multiple reliable news sources from Uganda and Ghana where Bash Luks and/or Lot Fire Records are the primary subject. The Kampala Dispatch and Tower Post are reputable newspapers. News Ghana is a reputable news portal. Capital Radio (ie 91.3 Capital FM) is also reputable. There is certainly enough reliable secondary coverage to support an article on Bash Luks per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. At this point I think Lot Fire Records would be better covered in that article because I don't think the record label as yet passes WP:NCORP. The list is small, and doesn't need to be a stand alone article.4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced to press releases, the whole enterprise, its artists, its CEO are not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one songs of 2010 (Turkey)

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

Unprodded a couple of months ago as “appropriate content fork of a seemingly notable chart” but has still not been cited. As the article does not exist in Turkish Wikipedia it seems unlikely to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1) this is part of a series of articles (in various countries; deleting one page in particular (as has been done after unilateral draftifications of other years) is absurd and borders disruption). 2) OK, I'll source it. But.....the person who DePRoDed this was right imv. Why, just because it is unsourced, take this particular year to deletion? The fact that this does not exist on Turkish WP is not an issue. Also please remember WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". Mushy Yank (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank OK I did not know that NLIST said that about lists. So does that mean the “unsourced” tag should be removed from this article and similar ones such as List of number-one hits of 2006 (Turkey), 2007, 2009? If so what about the other uncited lists on https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Turkey.html#Cites%20no%20sources ?Chidgk1 (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Note that NLIST indicates in the following sentence that, still, presenting sources is more than recommended! In general, the unsourced tag should not be removed until sources are added but the notability of such lists that are part of a set is not an issue, I would say. That list you link is very long and in theory, again, sources should be added but one can only decide whether the page seems notable without sources present on a case by case approach. I'll add sources to the 3 pages you listed but one person cannot source all unsourced pages even if that is only Turkey-related articles. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in fact, yes, the Unsourced tag should have been removed because there was a source in the EL of all 4 articles, with a link indicating "previous number ones may be found via archive.org". And the template's doc indicates: "You should only add this template to articles that contain no citations or references of any kind." Which was not the case. ImproveRef or RefExist or any other tag would have been OK. The Unsourced tag, as well as the notability tag, indicate extremely serious issues and should not be used lightly if easy means of verification and available sources exist. Thanks. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as issues brought up by nom have been addressed. Tessaract2^Hi! 13:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article is cited now and per WP:NLIST. Synonimany (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaita-de-fole coimbrã

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

Completely unsourced article, and I cannot find any good sources on the instrument. All I can find are youtube videos, some facebook posts, a few forum posts, and one website called "folkworld.eu" (link:http://www.folkworld.eu/68/e/wkpf.html). Gaismagorm (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per total lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raw ("Hopsin" album)

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

Contested draft. Duplicate of Raw (Hopsin album) which was WP:BLARed last year due to a lack of notability. Pinging @QuietHere: the editor who performed the BLAR on the previous article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hopsin discography. Lack of usable sources on the album. Ss112 14:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUM. Raw (Hopsin album) already exists, so no need for a redirect. मल्ल (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unlikely search term when properly formatted title already exists (if it is redirected then it should go to Hopsin#2010–2011: Success with Funk Volume and Raw to match with Raw (Hopsin album)'s current target). Shows no amount of notability more than the prior article did. Surprisingly, despite the ping, I appear not to have received a notification for this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Deletion and Redirection and there are two different target articles being suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this was an attempt to sneak an unwanted article into Wikipedia - both by way of the strange title and the unilateral draftification. Geschichte (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AnyDecentMusic?

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Sources on article appear to be all promo reviews, primary sources, or an interview. No significant coverage found in searches. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I found this source but couldn't find anything else to establish notability. I could be convinced to vote the other way if more people come forward with better sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is fairly notable. The article just needs more sources. —theMainLogan (t•c) 06:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMainLogan Just needs more sources? Sources I wasn’t able to find. Did you find more sources? --Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the article "just needs more sources" is not a reason to keep the article; it is unhelpful commentary that points out the obvious. Please show us actual sources that establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rapsody Overture

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As mentioned in the previous AfD, the album appeared on various European charts and search results at Google Books indicate some notability. They could be called passing mentions: [4], [5], [6], [7]. But there are "snippet views" from DRUM magazine, The Big Issue, Paris Match, Tjednik (Croatian magazine) that are not fully viewable, and could be significant coverage. I think this is very likely a notable subject and sources are just locked in physical media. If the article is decided to be deleted, as an alternative to deletion a redirect to Prince Igor (song) would be appropriate. --Mika1h (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of passing WP:NALBUM. Sources presented aren't convincing. I can't find the substantial coverage required. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Wind Symphony's Percussion Ensemble

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

Subgroup of an ensemble that currently does not have a page. The Singapore Wind Symphony may be notable from my research, but the percussion ensemble is not. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Singapore. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds interesting, but there aren’t enough sources to make even a stub. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Drum: A History (2012, Scarecrow Press) gives it a brief mention as a notable ensemble on page 186. It's not in-depth, but a fact that the ensemble even gets a nod in an academic book about the history of the drum is a clue that the ensemble may be notable. This is an article about the group winning an international percussion competition. This is an interesting article promoting a Berlin concert; although it clearly wouldn't be considered independent. It's possible foreign language sources exist about the group given they have toured to Europe as well as in Asia. Perhaps something in the Berlin press for example? 4meter4 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Carter albums

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

I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources that discuss Lil Wayne's Tha Carter albums as a series or a set. A ranking by Vibe and XXL Mag is pretty much it. The albums have been released in a period over two decades, with not thematic coherence. This seems WP:SYNTHy and unnecessary. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [8][9][10]... Fram (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian again is a ranking, best to worst. The Billboard piece is a listicle of "Black Music Milestones", is three paragraphs long and mentions charting positions and sales. Doesn't discuss the albums as a series. UDiscoverMusic isn't listed at WP:MUSICRS and mostly talks about the first Tha Carter, not about the series as a whole. Where do reliable sources discuss the Tha Carter albums as a series, beyond the fact they got the same title? What makes Tha Carter Lil Wayne's Berlin Trilogy? As a series, what is its meaning, its cultural impact, its legacy? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards redirecting and/or draftifying. It's probably a viable search term. Not sure we need a ~~third~~ fourth location beyond the artist, individual album, and artist discography articles to discuss it. If there is a need, this article certainly doesn't demonstrate. It's basically just a (incomplete) list of release dates and singles. Put it back in the oven and let it cook. These albums have been out for years. There's no reason someone needed to sloppily rush this out yesterday. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A completely unnecessary synthesis of four different albums that all have their own articles and are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common. An article that ranks them against each other is pretty much a trivia exercise for reader enjoyment; see this example of how writers can compare anything to anything without the items being a distinct collective entity. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very dismissive. The artist treats them as a set, e.g. releasing specifically the singles from the albums as if they belong together[11]. Here is another article from a RS purely about the series[12]. Fram (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would releasing the singles together mean Lil Wayne treats them as a such "as if they belong together"? Could you elaborate? And while that would be interesting, an artist's own views on their work are secondary to how reliable sources consider it. The Vulture piece is more in depth though, but I'm not convinced as of yet. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That first part was just a reply to the weird claim that they "are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common." The artist considers them as a series, as evidenced by the titles (duh) but also by specifically releasing the singles from these albums together, as if they belong together somehow. While I have no issue with the discussion about whether they are notable as a series and whether they should have a separate article or not, I was rather amazed about the claim that they aren't even a series. But the singles set is not an argument for or against deletion, the Vulture article (which you commented upon, thanks) is an argument against deletion and pro notability. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you want on whether or not it's a "series" but that's the wrong argument. That ignores the much more precise Wikipedia policy cited by the nominator and myself: WP:SYNTH. As currently written, the article has nothing on what makes the albums a distinct collective entity, and merely lists release dates and singles and producers and guests stars. All info is repeated from the respective individual album articles. Any media article comparing/ranking them as a group is trivia as said above. Many of the article's existing sources are unreliable fansites and blogs, and the few reliable sources are about individual albums or songs. Recurring lyrical themes are valid but can be explained at Lil Wayne's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about the sources in the article or the state of the article, that's not what AfD is about in general, unless it is so egregious that WP:TNT (or in less severe cases draftification) are the best solution. There are plenty of reliable sources treating these albums as a series (and yes, even ranking them means that people consider them a series, something related and comparable and at the same time distinct from the things not listed), and the Vulture article goes way indepth about them, treating them as a separate, important, aspect of his total oeuvre worth discussing as a group: "his Carter records occupy a specific place in his staggering discography [...] But what can looking back at the previous four installments tell us about Wayne as an artist? About how he’s evolved, and what his entire career means?" (that article calls them a "series" and "a project" as well). Fram (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my comment above is rooted in multiple aspects of WP:MERGEREASON, conceptually. There just probably wouldn't much actual merging because I imagine much of this was aped from already existing articles in better shape. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After searching for almost an hour, I thought there's no such thing as a "album series" on Wikipedia, but then I stumbled across this category and I found this album series. With reliable sources, we can actually establish this as a valid album series. Vulture's writers had a lot to say about Tha Carter album series; its meaning, ranking and so on. Many reliable publications ranked albums from the series, publications like XXL, The Guardian, and Vibe just to mention a few. One thing we neglect to acknowledge is that those rankings are detailed, they dive into the works and the makings of the album series, they are not just "1–5" lists. dxneo (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lil Wayne albums discography, or Keep. The sources presented in this discussion do suggest that the albums can be considered a distinct collection of work, but the content would fit into a section on the article covering Lil Wayne's album discography. Svampesky (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

This helps people learn more about the Carter albums without them having to do much digging. It’s easier to just pull up the website that’s filled with reliable and important information about the topic (Carter albums) without the worrying about there being unnecessary information about other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwaikdoviwbwwko (talk • contribs) 02:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattin

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, and the external links in the article don't help establish notability (as they're either Mattin's website or interviews). Interestingly, the article was created by User:Mattata, whose only mainspace edits involve creating this article. toweli (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Literature, Music, and Spain. toweli (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some coverage in The Wire, albeit paywalled. From the magazine's index, issue 267 (2006) looks to have the most coverage of the subject. More recently, there was a book review a year ago, in issue 476. AllyD (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep, I would be inclined to delete normally, due to the probable conflict of interest noted by the nominator, the sources shown by AllyD appear to display notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now). I did find two books with some content: 1) Audio Culture, Revised Edition: Readings in Modern Music. United States: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017 - pp. 406-409. 2) Kádár, Dániel Z.. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. N.p.: Cambridge University Press, 2017 (one page). I don't think this rises to notability at this time. He did write a chapter in a book but it doesn't seem to be a book that has had an impact. Lamona (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music Proposed deletions

Real Magic TV (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)