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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iking Ferry

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

Fails notability, no WP:RS, clearly paid PR, all signs of undisclosed paid editing. Drewserbs (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Drewserbs (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Drewserbs (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly not notable. I feel like it should speedied as unambiguous advertising or promotion. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet notability criteria. Coldupnorth (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources don't seem reliable. If he has won awards, we also need to see reliable citations for it, not just mentions, in which case he may meet WP:MUSICBIO. MartinWilder (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. User:Em-mustapha ^talk 03:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's not any RS to demonstrate his notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails to meet our notability threshold as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.-Xclusivzik (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2022 (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. ✗plicit 13:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R.I.P Society Records

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

Deprodded by its creator in 2011 but appears to be a non notable record label so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have found some citations for this and added, including this significant one from Guardian. However, not sure if there is enough, I am leaning towards a Weak keep and might place a vote later. Chelokabob (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The Guardian piece meets the criteria as per WP:NCORP and since this is a very specialist company we may not have all of the published material available online for searching but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guardian is a reliable sources for proving notability, per WP:NCORP. Alimovvarsu (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Guardian article is the tipping point for me. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2022 (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 Riverside (band)#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 10:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voices in My Head (EP)

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

I believe this fails WP:GNG due to: discogs being a primary source and facebook and dprp.net being unreliable sources. Sikonmina (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Riverside (band)#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond AllMusic and Sputnik Music. SBKSPP (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2022 (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 Gentle Giant#Discography. ✗plicit 12:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under Construction (Gentle Giant album)

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

Album seems to fall short of WP:NALBUM. Sikonmina (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching for reviews, but this and this seem thin. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progplanet's reviews are written by unpaid reviewers. For that source, that would be considered unreliable. Sikonmina (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] states the "Reviews express the opinions of their writers". Expose Online isn't reliable either. Sikonmina (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gentle Giant#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond Expose. SBKSPP (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 23:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blxckie

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

Disputed PROD. Reason was "Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, is WP:TOOSOON, and is written from a fan's viewpoint" Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with too soon, he's not made it big yet. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has worked with big entertainment industry names such as CKay, Yanga, Nasty C and K.O just to mention a few, and has also won a South African Hip Hip Award for freshman of the year last year. The subject was also named Apple Music's Up Next artist the same year

Motlatlaneo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately he cannot inherit notability from those he has worked with. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. He must have his own inherent notability Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent, you missed the part where he won the award, is the South African Hip Hop Awards not notable? It's not actually inheriting someone's notability but more like the notable noted him and gave him a feature on multiple occasions and so did Apple Music.

Motlatlaneo (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a BEFORE shows the subject satisfies WP:NMUSIC through this, this,this and this. Furthermore his album seems to have received above the bar coverage featuring on a music television network, featuring in local press here and here, also having a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country and being nominated for an AFRIMA and has won a South African Hip Hop Award. -Xclusivzik (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xclusivzik. This is a significant amount of coverage, along with what seems to be a major award for the genre in South Africa. AryKun (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV is met here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Cult. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Fitzpatrick (musician)

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

This musician doesn't seem to meet GNG. Although plenty of sources make passing reference, I'm struggling to find much/any significant coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Cult. The best, and only non trivial, thing I could find, is this. Subject gets acknowledged everywhere all over the WWW, but that is it (in IRS), and is a likely search term. While subject has been in multiple contexts, the highest profile one seems to be The Cult, so redirect to there. Aoziwe (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Cult - He's a longtime backup/session guy with little coverage in his own right, but he has been with The Cult solidly for 6 years so they are a valid redirect target. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Cult - I did a Factiva news search and he comes up in the news a lot, however, it is always just in articles about the cult, mentioned as part of that. Doesn't seem to be individual notability for him, (I couldn't see one RS that spoke about him or featured him specifically) so..its a redirect from me! Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Redirect to the Cult is not satisfactory. According to Aoziwe's ref, his music career started in the 1990s. According to AllMusic he was a member of NYC-based group Mink from 2006, which issued an album in 2007. They toured US and Australia. Fellow members include David Lowy and Stella Mozgawa. Mink are notable enough for their own article. Prior to the artist's American-based career, he backed Sarah McLeod. How much of his non-the Cult work can be put in that group's article? Is WP:MUSICBIO satisfied by the current article?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he is "(ex-Mink)" is already in the Cult's article. Simply change that to "{ex-Mink, Sarah McLeod)". If Mink ever gets their own article, Fitzpatrick can be mentioned there just like he is mentioned for the Cult. He still doesn't qualify for his own individual article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I put that (ex-Mink) in there, two days ago, I also added "Australian-born" and a ref.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cult as per WP:BANDMEMBER. I couldn't find evidence of sufficient individual notability. Suonii180 (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evolove

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Article makes several claims of notability, cannot verify any of them. Of the sources, only one mentions the band and it is a probable PR piece. Band's website is now in Chinese. No reliable sources in web search. This was an aspiring band that probably didn't make it past 2012 Rogermx (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would just like to note that Evolove has released 4 albums in 2018.^[1] I don't have any other opinions about this article's deletion. ShockedAwe (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the number of albums released does not mean notability. Rogermx (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.pandora.com/artist/evolove/ARXXmZwm9Zbv9xV

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 23:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage in reliable sources not found. Neocorelight (Talk) 10:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2022 (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 Herman's Hermits. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Whitwam

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

Propose #REDIRECT Herman's Hermits. This article has been around since 2008 and doesn't have a single WP:RS. I've found a couple of interviews with Whitman but no in-depth third-party coverage. It seems it would be more useful to redirect to the notable band he was an integral part of. Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Herman's Hermits per nom. Notability is not WP:INHERITed and that seems to be the case here. I cannot really find any WP:SIGCOV of him. snood1205 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Herman's Hermits as per WP:BANDMEMBER, he doesn't have notability outside of the band. Suonii180 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Youth Marching Bands Association

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

Fails WP:NORG. No significant coverage in media. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, no RS here at all to establish notability for this org. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 04:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take On the World (Pseudo Echo song)

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

Blank and Redirect to Race (album). The song does not meet WP:NSONGS. Its closest argument for that is winning the World Popular Song Festival, but that is not considered a major music award per NSONGS. The song itself does not seem to have WP:SIGCOV that would bring it to meeting WP:GNG either. snood1205 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. snood1205 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. snood1205 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. snood1205 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. snood1205 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Race (album) Simple search returned no sources to contribute to GNG, song does not appear to be notable, redirect per WP:NSONG Justi yaya 19:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't think that winning a significant music reward is by its self enough to establish notability. Winning a significant music reward would "suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful" per WP:NSONG. Justi yaya 19:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No brainer, 100% keep. This song won a well-known (at the time) international song competition. I’m not sure why this was even considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyjamesaus (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Justiyaya's comment above, a song winning an award does not make a song inherently notable. snood1205 02:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tobyjamesaus: My comment above states that based on WP:NSONG, simply winning a major music reward is not enough for an article to be notable... Did I misinterpret the wording of the NSONG here, or is there another guideline/policy that I'm not aware of? Thanks, Justi yaya 11:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winner of significant (albeit historical) international song comp, ergo WP:NSONG. MagentaSwann (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Won a significant international song comp to meet WP:NSONG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2022 (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. While there is less discussion here of the substance of the sources than I would like, the arguments that the sources in the article provide significant coverage are not obviously wrong, and so I cannot close this any other way. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Parra

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

Chilean musician with no notability outside band. Was previously redirected to Los Jaivas as per WP:BANDMEMBER. John B123 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is absolutely notable, the article might need more accurate references but he is one of the most important keyboardist of the history of Latin America. I guess that hundreds of pornstars and third division soccer players are more notable than him?. Tommy Boy (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tommy Boy: see WP:BANDMEMBER... "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability". Can you show that Parra has any notability outside of the band, apart from having famous family members, which would be an WP:INHERITED notability? Richard3120 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although sources are influenced by his Jaivas membership, Parra is a prominent keyboardist and merits his own article, as he is notable by himself. I found several sources, such as that of Música Popular and some books, which go into detail on his work. --Bedivere (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you read the references in spanish, you can notice he is a stand out musician, which is explicitly said: Claudio Parra is undoubtedly one of the most transcendent Chilean musicians of the last 50 years. Tommy Boy (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As part of Los Jaivas, yes. You still haven't shown how he is notable outside of the band. Richard3120 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Los Jaivas as per nom. If, as has been suggested by the keep votes, he was such an outstanding musician, he would have more in-depth coverage of him outside the band. As it stands, and searches did not turn up anything additional, all the coverage is in context to the band. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Los Jaivas per Onel5969. Sources are specific to there; subject lacks independent notability. Garnarblarnar (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't read Spanish very well, but based on Tommy Boy's post, he is clearly notable as a stand alone musician. The articles, from the title certainly appear to be discussing him, rather than the band, thus meeting WP:RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't really – they are either wishing him happy birthday as a member of a famous band, being the sole surviving member of a famous band, or being interviewed as the keyboard player of a famous band. In short, all the sources are very much tied to him being part of Los Jaivas, and as far as I'm aware, he hasn't done anything notable outside of the band. Richard3120 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the sources give significant coverage to Parra. -- Mike 🗩 14:38, 13 January 2022 (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. ✗plicit 01:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DatPiff

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

Non-notable organisation. While there's likely a case to be made that the subject is notable in some fashion, the sources in the article do a spectacularly poor job of showing it, and I'm not finding much beyond passing mentions on Google (string: datpiff). I would love to be happy to be proven wrong about the lack of sources here, but as it sits right now there's nothing to work with. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 11:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The site is extremely influential in rap and as such has been covered in non-passing fashion by most of the major music publications that cover rap, more than enough to meet WP:WEBCRIT #1:
- Pitchfork: https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/768-is-2015-the-end-of-the-golden-era-of-rap-djs/ (Pitchfork's The Pitch section has both essays and reported pieces; this is the latter, and the author is an established rap critic)
- A longform interview in Complex -- by "longform" here I mean both that there is an editorial component before the actual interview, and an editorial decision to go long on it): https://www.complex.com/music/2019/10/datpiff-niche-interview-kp
- Another writeup in Complex that is even more emphatic about its notability and influence in the rap world: "It’s impossible to imagine the last decade of rap music without considering the influence of DatPiff." https://www.complex.com/music/2014/12/the-minds-behind-musics-biggest-tech-advances-in-the-last-10-years/marcus-frasier-founder-ceo-of-datpiff
- Billboard: https://www.billboard.com/music/rb-hip-hop/mixtapes-money-hip-hop-shadow-economy-mainstream-7669109/
- Spin (a passing mention, but worth noting since it is another established rap critic calling it influential) https://www.spin.com/2013/01/how-free-culture-saved-hip-hop-in-2012/
- Passion of the Weiss (a rap publication by an established critic/reporter), most is another interview but more than passing: https://www.passionweiss.com/2014/05/16/we-used-to-sell-mixtapes-an-interview-with-kp-reilly-of-datpiff-com/
- The Forbes article mentioned (Forbes hosts a lot of crap, but this is by a New Yorker journalist): https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhumphrey/2011/08/04/datpiff-how-love-for-mixtapes-grew-to-lil-wayne-levels/?sh=7e57ecaf1ab8

Et cetera. This is the level of notability where I didn't even have to google the site specifically, I just went on all the big music publications and there was coverage in every case. I will add these to the article later. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please and thank you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Incredibly influential in hip hop music, as demonstrated by Gnomingstuff. It's pretty much a shorthand for "internet mixtape", per Mosi Reeves in Rolling Stone using the phrase "like a relic from the Datpiff era" in the magazine's review of Lil Wayne's Carter V. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with No prejudice against speedy renomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Mylene Sheath

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

This is a nonnotable label considering the references that we do have are its own website. Sikonmina (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels. Chubbles (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Any references to support that assertion? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hugh Shields. I think there's a stronger consensus for Hugh Shields above the other suggested targets. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Music Society of Ireland

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

I found no reliable coverage. Weirdly enough for an organization founded in 1971, the article is only sourced to Wordpress. Hoax? SL93 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect (to Irish folk music/Irish traditional music, perhaps to the related "revival" section). A very quick WP:BEFORE search confirms that this is not a hoax. Unclear what, following the nom's own BEFORE, would prompt that suggestion. However, while reliable sources confirm that the subject does/did exist (including Irish Traditional Music Archive, Irish Times and related Archive/Library sources) I'm not seeing sufficient sources to establish independent notability. Recommend summarising (to that which can be supported by ideally non-primary sources), and merging to Irish folk music or Irish music collecting or similar. Guliolopez (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for clearer consensus on merge target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge target - Irish music collecting seems very suitable. Ingratis (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The only reliable source, the Irish Times, contains SIGCOV of its founder Hugh Shields and only has a passing mention of the subject. Merge to a section in Hugh Shields. Multi7001 (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hugh Shields: as above. It seems the society fizzled out with Shields' death. It may be that offline sources have more to say about it, in which case it can be recreated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hugh Shields as more specific than Irish folk music (which could also work, mind you). This very much existed but indeed may have faded after its founder moved on. It actually probably would warrant an article but there's a reference sourcing problem, not uncommon for voluntary bodies in that period (even major organisations are often poorly covered, especially if sub-national or focused on a less talked-about topic). So a merge-with-potential if someone could find the right book or set of magazines, I'd hope. SeoR (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Grevenbicht#History. Unlikely that an additional relist would establish different consensus. Creator cautioned against name calling and personal attacks. Star Mississippi 01:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegrass Beeg

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

This article about a bluegrass festival has been unsourced since creation aside from a vague wave to "EBMA European Bluegrass Music Association" as a source. I can find no coverage to establish this as a notable festival. Whpq (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Grevenbicht#History. Must have been a lovely event that caused people with autism and families a lot of joy. Unfortunately it did not take off from a media perspective, or otherwise, and was ceased after four years. Is deservedly listed under the history of Grevenbicht. This sentence should be updated and the article redirected, constituting of an extremely selective merge with a redirect as its main result. gidonb (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the writer of the article and chairman of Foundation Autism Friendly Limburg. This is the foundation that organised this festival. The foundation is still active. People with or without autism remember this event and it is has the function of a spot on the timeline. People can work together, that is what this festival shows. It was financed with government resources. Therefore the text it should stay. Guffens (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC) I propose to help and make suggestions how this article in line with wiki standard. Guffens (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC) The festival Bluegrass Beeg is part of the history of Grevenbicht#History and therefor a part of history of city Sittard-Geleen#History and part of Province Limburg (Netherlands)#History. Radiostation Start Geleen (now Bie Ös) location Stein made documentary about this festival and local newspaper both visited and wrote an article about this event. If you would like to do factchecking, be my guest and find out for yourself! Guffens (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be kept, the article needs to have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today I confirmed that the used Bluegrass Beeg posters (4) are actually my property. The posters may be used.Guffens (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The latest change are not appropriate and degradation of the given article. That one who did this is moron. Guffens (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hyderabad State. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 12:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

O Osman

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

I find nothing notable about this old anthem of a defunct kingdom/province/state. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hyderabad State. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond the 1st source in the article. SBKSPP (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt for comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. No evidence this was the anthem of Hyerabad State, a distinct political entity from the Kingdom of Hyderabad. No evidence of significant coverage of this as an anthem of any political entity. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hyderabad State, as per SBKSPP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:44, 13 January 2022 (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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 00:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Adapted Music Society

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

VAMS does great work, but this and this are the only articles I am able to find, and I don't think they constitute enough for WP:ORG or the GNG. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep There's a CBC article that pops up in Gnews, talking about one of the artists they've supported, so I think with the ref mentioned above it's just barely notable. Found a brief mention in GBooks here [[2]], page 238 I think it is. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gscholar also has a few hits in journals, one in Proquest in particular talks it about in details. Would seem to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I can't see the preview of the book so wasn't sure how significant it was. Will go look for the ProQuest one you referenced. Star Mississippi 02:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 2 January 2022 (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 M-Girls. Can be restored if better sources are found. Sandstein 12:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four Golden Princess

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

I cannot find evidence of notability for this musical group. News results are limited to tabloid type coverage for their marriages/child births, but nothing clear that they meet MUSIC or the GNG. The Chinese language article does not have anything present reliable soure wise to back up the sales figures, which might help. Star Mississippi 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Very notable band throughout China. Article is not as well written as others and not much reliable sources are present. This article has a lot of potential and it should be kept. HelpingWorld (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but recreate as draft. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- CuteDolphin712, Draftifying a 15 year old article that is not likely to receive much new coverage is not a good idea. Curbon7 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sales numbers alleged in the article are impressive. If true, then this group would have multiple albums certified platinum in both Malaysia and China, and one album certified diamond in China (assuming that the page List of music recording certifications is correct). This would be more than enough to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. However, the numbers are not sourced. This probably needs some attention by users who can actually read Chinese or Malay. Mlb96 (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M-Girls where some information about the group is mentioned, including collaboration albums. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 29 December 2021 (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 (WP:NPASR). Ineligible for soft deletion due to past declined PROD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Film Music Society

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

No significant coverage and unreferenced. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like there should be sourcing for this, but like nom I'm unable to find independent, significant sourcing. They're producers of content, but what's not from them is mostly name dropping. I'm going to see if I can find any more during this run, but at the moment it feels like it's delete/draft. I'm also fairly sure this is an offline copyvio, but that and the G11 elements could be handled editorially if sourcing is found. Star Mississippi 02:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't think we are going to achieve a clearer consensus given this has had three relists. The general feeling is that the article should be kept and no view to the contrary has been expressed besides through the nomination itself. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waves (festival)

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

An article about a student event, referenced only to brief event announcement coverage (and with further such available, such as this promotionally-worded notice (2019). Despite the claims in the article text, such as that it "gained popularity far and wide due to the euphoria and ecstasy it creates", searches are not finding the evidence of notability needed to sustain an article here. I considered redirecting this to the article about the parent institution, where it is mentioned at Birla_Institute_of_Technology_and_Science,_Pilani_–_Goa_Campus#Student_life but a redirect without discussion seems inappropriate as this article was originally accepted at AfC, so I am instead bringing it here. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs lots of cleanup and better sources to be added, but I think there's something salvageable here. Although it's a student event, it seems to have a lot of coverage in the local area. Googling for "Waves Festival Goa" comes up with some promising results, although some may be promotional.^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] JonnyDKeen (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep. This needs more sources, but it clearly seems to be a major event that would normally qualify for a wiki page, and has been running for years. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not been any discussion for three weeks, though may help to gain views on the sources offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as nominator): The articles in the References box above are examples of what I meant by "brief event announcement coverage": similarly-worded PR pieces about the festival. Clearly this annual event has existed for a number of years, but can anyone identify a level of substantial consideration about the event which would justify a distinct article? If not, isn't a redirect to the brief coverage at Birla_Institute_of_Technology_and_Science,_Pilani_–_Goa_Campus#Student_life an appropriate outcome? AllyD (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2022 (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 Evermore (Taylor Swift album). Both songs have received the majority of their coverage as part of the album, and so don't currently stand on their own; the info should be merged into the album article. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy like Me

(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)

This song article fails WP:NSONGS. Sources used in this article are album reviews. Two sources (TuneBat and Musicnotes are primary sources, and interpretations of primary sources are potentially WP:OR. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. I suggest this article be redirected to Evermore (Taylor Swift album). Ippantekina (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: For the same reason, I propose Ivy (Taylor Swift song) for deletion (or merge or redirect). Sources in this article are limited to album reviews, and per NSONGS album reviews do not establish notability. Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Cowboy like Me", no opinion on "Ivy": I am cribbing/copying quite heavily from a similar argument I've made in regards to My Tears Ricochet because, at least in my view, these are two sides of the same coin in this instance, and I have similar opinions on both of their nominations - I'm also not giving my input on Ivy for similar reasons - Cowboy like Me is the article that I am familiar with and I'm not presently interested in judging the quality of Ivy at the moment.

Yes, "Cowboy like Me" does not meet WP:NSONGS - the majority of its coverage is established from reviews of Evermore, but I would argue it meets WP:GNG. Evermore, as an album, recieved quite a significant amount of coverage, and while not every track on it is necessarily notable, I would argue "Cowboy like Me" is, as it has recieved significant coverage, even if that coverage is from album reviews of Evermore.

The article consists of about 712 words by my reckoning, and even assuming half of that would be unnecessary in the Folklore article, this still leaves 356 words of the article that would be merged into Evermore (as per WP:NSONGS, some of this material would be contained in the album article), to an area of the "Songs" section that currently consists of 52 words on "Cowboy like Me". In my view, merging the articles would be unnecessary, and simply give undue weight to "Cowboy like Me" to account for its notability. --LivelyRatification (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You acknowledge that "Cowboy like Me" does not meet NSONGS. I will break down the article:

"Background and release": can be reasonably merged into Evermore;

"Composition and lyrics": can be reasonably merged into Evermore (the musicnotes.com or tubenet sources are primary sources);

"Reception": negligible. This consists of all album reviews;

"Charts": can be seen at Taylor Swift singles discography#Other charted songs.

So this article can be reasonably merged without fear of cluttering the Evermore article. Quantity over quality. Ippantekina (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. They meet WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Ivy" now qualifies the notability criteria on WP:NSONGS too following its feature on Dickinson, generating mutiple sources on the Internet. Highlighting this only because Ippantenkina stated they believed this song doesn't need an article because it didn't pass NSONGS. In my opinion, passing WP:GNG is enough to warrant an article. But now that it passes both, there shouldn't be an issue. Ronherry (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both articles are essentially WP:FANCRUFT. Very little in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject so fails WP:GNG. Just charting is not enough for these two songs as most Taylor Swift songs will do that these days. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because both are viable search times, redirecting them to Evermore (Taylor Swift album) would be more appropriate. Ippantekina (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That too makes sense! Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for futher input to establish a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Doesn't look like they meet WP:NSONGS to me. Popcornfud (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Evermore (Taylor Swift album) as there does not appear to be significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources on this specific song. As the nominator has already noted, these songs are discussed in album reviews, but further (and more specific) coverage would be necessary to support either of these two songs having their own articles. They are both viable search terms so I believe a redirect would be preferable over outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Music Proposed deletions

[1] ttps://www.pandora.com/artist/evolove/ARXXmZwm9Zbv9xV

[2] ttps://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/waves-bits-pilani-goa-2021-ile-de-fantaisie-12-14-nov-2021/26770

[3] ttps://youthincmag.com/waves-2021-bits-pilani-goas-annual-cultural-festival

[4] ttps://www.groovenexus.com/event/college-fest/waves-bits-pilani-goa/

[5] ttps://www.thegoan.net//all-set-to-make-waves/37967.html

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]