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 merge‎ to Lars Kinström. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Kinström

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

Doesn’t seem to meet WP:BIO. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Music, and Sweden. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't access Svenskt Klavikordbygge 1720–1820, but the other two sources in the article just contain trivial mentions (the first source just cites the second and third sources). Can't find anything other than trivial mentions in my search, but historical bios are relatively likely to have hard-to-find sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She doesn't have an entry on the Swedish Wikipedia, although her husband and brother (both also instrument makers) do. She's briefly mentioned here and here (under her maiden name) in entries on her husband, which just say that she continued operating his workshop after his death. She's also briefly mentioned here in an entry on her brother. Sadly it seems like she's basically been treated as a side note in sources about her male relatives. Hopefully someone else is able to find something more substantial, because from what I could find I'm not sure there's enough in the historical record to warrant an article about her. MCE89 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the obvious thing to do here is to translate the article on her husband Lars Kinström from Swedish wiki: he is certainly notable; and then to merge Christina into that. She may well have done sterling work in her late husband's company, but it seems unlikely that enough has been recorded about her to make a stand-alone article possible. If anyone else feels like doing the translation, that'd be great, otherwise I can do that and then the merge will only take a moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to newly translated article Lars Kinström as above. I've already done the merge so all that's needed is consensus here and we can make her article into a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2025 (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 University of Dhaka. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Viswavidyalay Patrika

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

Subject does not meet criteria for WP:NJOURNALS (journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases) and lacks independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Recon rabbit 14:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Academic journals. Recon rabbit 16:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, Philosophy, Music, History, Law, Politics, Business, Religion, Science, Biology, Economics, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.CharlesWain (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that WP:NJOURNALS states that "It is possible for a journal not to be notable under this guidance but still meet WP:GNG for other reasons", so failing WP:NJOURNALS is not necessarily a reason to delete. Also, WP:NJOURNALS#C2 says that "The comprehensiveness of the coverage varies by field, geography, language", and it may be the case that Bangla journals are not well covered. I found this article [1] that says that none of the academic journals published by the University of Dhaka are indexed by leading databases. Interestingly, the authors of that article did not have access to data about Dhaka Viswavidyalay Patrika / ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় পত্রিকা during their research. I think that we would need to look at Bangladeshi publications (whether in English or in Bangla) to assess whether this journal might meet WP:GNG. Hopefully someone with such access will participate here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look like this journal published by the University of Dhaka is indexed by any databases, from what MIAR tells me. ~~It may be the case that this is a candidate to redirect to University of Dhaka rather than deletion~~, as was the case for the Azerbaijan Journal of Educational Studies, the only member of Category:Azerbaijani-language journals, which redirects to Ministry of Science and Education (Azerbaijan). Recon rabbit 15:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: RebeccaGreen you are right that a journal can be notable even if it misses NJournals. However, in that case it has to be shown to meet WP:GNG and I don't see evidence for that either. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the University of Dhaka.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my previous recommendation to concur with Vinegarymass911 and recommending a merge to University of Dhaka. Recon rabbit 20:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Dhaka as recommended by Vinegarymass911. Unable to find sources that would justify a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is nothing to rescue. AgusTates (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: It should be merged with the University of Dhaka, no WP:RS available for a standalone article, not even in Bengali language. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2025 (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. Not a notable artist Dr vulpes (Talk) 10:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shobani

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

Lacks notability. Allegedly charted one week on a local Shazam chart, discussed only in unreliable sources (blogs, "articles" which are just glorified press releases, ...). Fram (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Nigeria, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Shobani" article should not be deleted. While I understand concerns about the reliability of sources, I am actively working to add more credible references. Deleting the article would remove valuable content that can be improved. Wikipedia articles are works in progress, and I am committed to enhancing this one. I ask for patience as I continue to update and refine the article. Kyledave2025 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable musician, a top 21 stream in one American city is not what we use for notability. This found [2], doesn't help much... Very much non-notable. No charted singles, no record releases on a major label, no awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no suggestions that the song is independently notable, or I would suggest draftifying the article. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:26, 21 January 2025 (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. Star Mississippi 03:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

En midsommarnattsdröm (song)

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

Subject fails GNG and NSONG for not having significant coverage of independent, reliable source to pass the guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If it reached the top of the Swedish "Singles Top 100" music chart, it's probably notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC) See https://web.archive.org/web/20120314114527/https://swedishcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=H%25E5kan+Hellstr%25F6m&titel=En+midsommarnattsdr%25F6m&cat=s[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like it charted at #1 for about ~1 week in Sweden, and remained in top #100 for a little while after that.^[1] I did find a short write-up of this song in particular in the Göteborgs-Posten^[2], and it's also given a passing mention in a few tabloid articles about the musician in general.^[3]^[4] Does not seem to qualify for multiple, independent sources of sigcov. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "En Midsommarnattsdröm by Håkan Hellström - Music Charts". acharts.co. Retrieved 2025-01-22.
^ Lindqvist, Johan (2005-01-14). "Håkan Hellström | En midsommarnattsdröm". Göteborgs-Posten (in Swedish). Retrieved 2025-01-22.
^ Engman, Pascal (2016-06-03). "Håkan Hellströms fejd som ännu inte har läkt". www.expressen.se (in Swedish). Retrieved 2025-01-22.
^ "Nu anklagas Håkan Hellström för låtstöld - igen". www.aftonbladet.se (in Swedish). 2005-01-29. Retrieved 2025-01-22.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep: per sources above.~~ Anktjha (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A number one charting song. Notable per WP:NMUSIC.BabbaQ (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2025 (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 Unis (group). Malinaccier (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gehlee

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, WP:BANDMEMBER with no WP:SIGCOV for individual notability other than passing mentions from Universe Ticket-related reportings (the competition show that determines the lineup for Unis) and in turn Unis-related reportings including but not limited to her "about"-type reporting as part of Unis's debut-related promotional reportings from WP:BEFORE. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unis (group) per WP:BANDMEMBER.⁂CountHacker (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unis (group) per WP:BANDMEMBER. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unis (group). Fails WP:SINGER independently per nom and is not notable outside the group per WP:BANDMEMBER. SBKSPP (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2025 (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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morag McLaren

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

Can't find anything that suggests Morag McLaren is notable. The only source in the article is very weak. Guiy de Montfort de L'Amaury 00:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music, Theatre, and Scotland. Guiy de Montfort de L'Amaury 00:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see plenty of coverage in the British Newspaper Archive. I'll add it and come back to vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to the improvements made by RebeccaGreen (talk) can this nomination be withdrawn? -- Guiy de Montfort de L'Amaury 13:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made only a few improvements to the actual article so far! I've been creating a table of performances in my sandbox, to move to the article when more complete, so there will be more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more info, references and a table of performances to the article. I'm still adding to the article, but it is clear that she meets WP:ENTERTAINER, with significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage spans a large time period and when combined the newspaper reviews and coverage in frequently cited sources like The Stage count towards c1 of WP:BASIC. As with all subjects that are covered by pre Internet sources some additional work ensuring that the reader's path to WP:V is as smooth as it can be, ie. National Newspaper Archives, Internet archives etc is an ATD route well worth exploring.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 09:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:MUSICBIO, she has sufficient coverage such as The Herald, The Time etc Maxcreator (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CAMI Music

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

Does not seem to pass WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Management, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (could also redirect to Ronald A. Wilford with a single line about him founding the company) - I am only finding mentions or routine coverage, nothing that comes close to WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2025 (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 2024 Democratic National Convention. asilvering (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial roll call at the 2024 Democratic National Convention

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

Trivial event with only routine coverage. I T B F 📢 17:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I T B F 📢 17:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was not a trivial event. It was well-covered beyond routine coverage, in large part because it diverted from the standard roll call practices by featuring a DJ and even a cameo performance mid-roll call. Before this, in-person conventions had roll calls that looked like this. It was an innovation in convention production having the 2024 DNC bring out a DJ to play a theme song for each state.

It was also unique from all major party convention roll calls except the 2020 DNC roll call in being ceremonial rather than official. The article can be usefully expanded to explain the circumstances of why Harris was nominated in advance of the convention (initially was brought the threat of certain states to deny the Democratic nominee ballot access if they waited until the convention to nominate her, due to refusal to extend ballot deadlines). (The official roll can in advance of the convention was also unique as this was the first nomination in generations where nearly all delegates unbound. Biden's withdrawal meant that delegates were free to vote however they wished. Ultimately, Harris sewed up enough support in advance of the convention quick enough to dissuade any other candidates from seeking the nom) SecretName101 (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds like it can be included in the main DNC 2024 article in about three sentences. I T B F 📢 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not without erasing and easy way for readers to (without going off-side) answer the question of "what states chose what songs" and other info. SecretName101 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, United States of America, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list of songs falls under WP:NOTDB and the rest of it can go in 2024 Democratic National Convention. Astaire (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 Democratic National Convention. Trivial and can be sufficiently covered there. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the overall DNC article, doesn't have notability of its own. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 Democratic National Convention per WP:MERGEREASON#4. BilletsMauves^€500 20:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 Democratic National Convention and redirect to this section as a viable ATD per WP:NOPAGE and WP:DUP. Sal2100 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2025 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Jae

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and Wikipedia general notability guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Cited sources are the usual promotional music releases and public relations, nothing we can use to write an encyclopedic entry. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It appears the subject does not have enough valid secondary sourcing to confirm notability under WP:GNG. Source #10 also says that it's from GQ South Africa, but this is a lie, it's from "Music in Africa.Net". m a MANÍ¹⁹⁹⁰ 🌵 ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:07, 18 January 2025 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amzy B

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Almost all the sources are either promotional pieces or unreliable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable musical artist, fails WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG (WP:MUSICBIO) category. User generated social media content available. No sufficient material to establish WP:N. QEnigma talk 05:14, 19 January 2025 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Swanson

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

Unclear if this individual is notable enough for own article - does not appear (in my view) to fulfill standards re: notability for creative professionals WP:Author. Is already mentioned in the Secretly Group article. A MINOTAUR (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Management, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He is mentioned in recent news stories about his labels. There are few in-depth stories that I could find. All the same, given the existing sources and others 1, 2, 3 ... maybe just clears the bar. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few brief mentions do not establish WP:SIGCOV. The IndyStar source presesnted by Jaireeodel is primarily about his brother, Ben, and the other two are about Secretly Group, not Swanson. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very low significant coverage.AgusTates (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE Protoeus (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2025 (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 01:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siren Records

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

Article only covers some releases from the label, nothing about the company itself. BEFORE reveals nothing, save for a store by the same name. A clear failure of WP:NORG. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and New Zealand. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Universal Music New Zealand. There are problems with the nomination - record labels exist to release albums, so a label page mainly covering the artists makes perfect sense, and we should look to WP:MUSIC rather than ORG for guidance on music-related topics. WP:MUSIC 5 gives a sense of what an important label is, and this label, in my view, would only squeak by; it didn't operate for a very long time, and it primarily released the output of three artists (Annabel Fay, Goldenhorse, and Opshop) - but those three artists are famous in New Zealand. There is encyclopedic interest in linking these artists together and in providing basic information about their label's activity, and I think the best place for that is on the page of the current parent label of Siren, Universal Music New Zealand. Chubbles (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails NCORP and there's nothing retention worthy. re-direct can easily be crated at anytime, so it's better to just get rid of it to prevent it from being converted into an article again surreptitiously at a later time. Record label is not a band or an ensmble. It's a company, thus NCORP, not NMUSIC. Graywalls (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2025 (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 05:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like a Bird

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NSONG. The coverage of this song is mostly just related to trivia / "did you know?" Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The song itself does not appear to have sufficient notability to have it's own article. The song is already covered within the Tiffany Trump article. A MINOTAUR (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city ^‽ 18:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete while the citations used are credible, they only have limited focus on the song itself, and appear to focus more on family connections as well as non-musical parts of Tiffany's life. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:32, 30 January 2025 (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) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of classical music composers by era

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

The long list uses no sources thus violating WP:V and has no inclusion criteria, essentially, the composers are chosen arbitrarily, thus going against WP:LISTCRITERIA. On top of it, the list is practically unusable, as the content is not searchable, so it is not possible to locate a composer unless one knows the dates of his life - but with this knowledge there is little use for a timeline. A reader of this AfD might try, for example to locate Cesar Cui as an exercise. The same Cesar Cui was part of The Five, but it is almost impossible to decipher from the chosen way of representation, as the pieces of timeline are split arbitrarily, thus creating false impression of periodic composers' mass extinctions, like the one in 1610 (section "Renaissance era"). As a result, The Five's lives are literally cut into pieces. We already have Lists of composers#Western classical period that are way more readable, so an issue of WP:CFORK also pops up. Викидим (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per WP:WDAFD. Reason: WP:SNOW due to little support. --Викидим (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Music. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirects to Lists of composers#Era have been reverted several times. Noting there has been discussion about how the timeline has limited functionality. – The Grid (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if it had sources, this thing would still be an unencyclopedic mess. That and the impossibility of imposing inclusion criteria make deletion the only possible choice. I suppose such a chart could possibly be used in a much more limited way, say among a group of composers for whom inclusion criteria can be established, like The Five or Les Six. But even so, it wouldn't be encyclopedic. As it stands, on top of the reasons given by nominator, this would still qualify for deletion according to WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for a list of composers by 'timeline' and this was my first glance. I understand the reasons to delete, but the colors make for ease of use. What do you recommend in stead? Rcpeace (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been around forever, has had over 2 million views in less than a decade, so some people must find it useful. Unusually for a list, all the entries have linked articles, so references are very easily found. I'm not impressed by the other arguments in the nom, and would like to hear how deletion would actually improve the encyclopedia. Probably its a good thing to recognise Cesar Cui's distinct individuality for a change. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cesar Cui came into discussion in a trivial way: I had earnestly tried to search for him, and found the list unusable. One can try their favorite composer, or a random one. Викидим (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's not there. He's a very minor figure (all but unknown in the Anglosphere), and probably shouldn't be - the list doesn't claim to be exhaustive. That's no reason to delete the thing. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two funny things here are: (1) Russian The Five (just like French Les Six) is an important part of the Western musical culture, so Cui is never left off the important composer's lists (even though he is likely to be the weakest one of the Five, a long period of rubbing shoulders with Modest Mussorgsky and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov resulted in some of their gold dust rubbing onto him as well). He is therefore present in these diagrams, naturally. (2) Your (and initially mine) inability to find Cui in this mishmash of colored graphs, with no sorting or search capabilities, highlights my issue with this article: graphics is only useful if it is easier to read than plain text. This one isn't easy to read at all.

I am not denying the usefulness (and potential WP:verifiability) of the list of composers, graphic timelines, horizontal colored bars with composer's name on them. I have very limited, but IMHO grave issues with the particular way of presenting composers chosen in this article: for starters, as we both now know, there is no easy way to establish if a particular composer is in or out. Therefore, even if a WP:RS for this particular list can be found (I very much doubt it), WP:V is practically impossible due to the chosen way of presentation. Викидим (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be the job of categories. We don't need separate articles for this. Agletarang (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move: We could move this to be a part of the project vital articles for composers, so it wouldn't be WP:CIRC if it's in the same article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikieditor662: Your initial comment is difficult to interpret. What do you mean by "we could move this to be a part of the project vital articles for composers"? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:VA, specifically Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Western art music. This VA palcement sort of thing was suggested to me in the past for a different timeline. Does this clarify? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Are you suggesting that the article only include composers whose articles have been listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Western art music? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that way it's more objective. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a direct relationship between these two lists : the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Medieval and Renaissance section contains 26 names, while in the article being discussed the "Medieval" section contain 50 names, and "Renaissance" 62. With three overlapping entries, there is an apparent grand total of 109 (note that counting was done manually (there seems to be no easy way to quickly establish the precise count), so I may be of by 1 or 2. Incidentally, if we can agree on much shorter lists, the issue of WP:V becomes much easier to solve, finding multiple lists of about 100 influential composers of all times in the literature is trivial (off-topic: these short lists will not include an entry on Cui - but will mention him). Викидим (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you in favor or against this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two votes from me right at the top. By now, I had withdrawn my own nomination. Викидим (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve upon by adding more text. Someone went through a lot of work to create those charts. Would be a damn shame to delete it. Many incoming links would go broken too. I for one happen to find it very entertaining and educational. -- œ^™ 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:HARDWORK argument. Come on. The backlinks can be fixed easily too. – The Grid (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah so what. That page lists every argument every heard in a deletion discussion. Doesn't make them all totally invalid. Everything should be taken on a case-by-case basis. -- œ^™ 09:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the topic has been addressed as a set in multiple reliable sources. Added a few very basic ones. Meets WP:NLIST. WP:V is not violated nor is the list indiscriminate. The inclusion criteria is based on sources, not an arbitrary decision. One can make that clearer in the intro or on the TP -Mushy Yank. 14:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ I'm struggling to understand why a list of wiki-notable classical composers does not meet NLIST - any bibliographic dictionary of music is treating the set as a set, surely? What's the argument for deletion here? Verifiability is a content policy that is a good reason to remove content, but not to delete an entire article when large parts of it are indeed verifiable. I could see an argument to split this and move the charts into their respective lists, but again that's not a rationale for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with such a list in general, as long as it is usable, has some criteria (which might be "every composer that already has an article" - this is not the case now), and some sources. However, we already have such List of classical composers - which is not this one. So, this is a duplicate that (1) is almost unusable (cannot be searched unlike the other one), (2) has no sources (the other one has hundreds), (3) has no criteria (it does not seem that any criteria was applied to select the entries), (4) missing important information (school, works, etc. are present in the other list). So, we can easily see the violation of not just WP:NLIST, but also MOS:LIST, WP:V, and WP:CFORK. Moving the timelines to other lists as illustrations might be IMHO an acceptable solution, as our readers are used to a lot of pictures that require them to squint in order to see the fine details. While doing the move, maybe we can also remove - unsearchable - hyperlinks that make very hard-to-read color combinations (cf. the Philippe Verdelot entry in List of classical music composers by era#Renaissance era) or simply use contrasting colors for the text on the bars (once the diagrams are split into different articles, a much better supply of pastel backgrounds is available for each one (cf. the perfectly readable List of classical music composers by era#Romantic era). Викидим (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are a rationale for deletion though. MOS compliance is important but never sufficient to remove an otherwise viable article. Non-notable entries are added to lists all the time - that doesn't make the scope suddenly nonviable. Fundamentally, meeting NLIST is not changed by the current state of the article, only by whether the scope as we choose to define it is treated as a topic by RS, and it is, in this case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t see any solid argument in favour of deletion, and pretty much all encyclopedias of classical music have a chart like this, so the ‘unencyclopedic’ point makes no sense. Mccapra (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - This AfD was withdrawn by the nominator three days ago; their withdrawal decision is near the top of the page but was added after the most recent vote by Mccapra near the bottom. I attempted a "Withdrawn" non-admin close but that created an error that I can't figure out, so an Admin may have to handle that. Regardless, the discussion seems to be over. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Doomsdayer520, since there's still outstanding delete !votes, "the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it" (WP:WITHDRAWN).~~ UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After 12 days it's clearly in Keep/no consensus territory. I don't know what "outstanding" would mean. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking me up on this, Johnbod. I somehow completely missed that this was relisted. Obviously not an early closure then, my mistake! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when a nominator withdraws the deletion argument and the running consensus is to keep the article, that can qualify for a snowball close, while this particular discussion qualifies for a non-admin close, even though WP:WITHDRAWN has a few policy qualifiers. Once again, I attempted the non-admin close here, which I have been done before, but there was a system error that I couldn't figure out how to fix so here we stand. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:10, 30 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bunge Burunje

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The sources could not establish WP:SIGCOV. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Ethiopia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources for this person. The ones in the article are very brief, and the website is a news and advertising service. I'm unsure if it's promotional or not, but we have no sourcing anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with Oaktree b. No sources, could be promotional. LarryL33k (Contribz) 05:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:04, 23 January 2025 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 21:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Search Alpha

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. All the sources are either promotional pieces or unreliable. I conducted a WP: Before and I could not find any signs of notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another WP:PROMO article which fails WP:ORGCRIT and does nothing but advertises the services of Search Alpha. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good day, I suggested keeping this article as a stub because its a growing startup that has already carved out a unique niche in the music tech industry, working with Google to help music creatives gain visibility and notability online.

~~Additionally, the company holds a Google Gold Badge, which is a significant marker of credibility and recognition WP:GNG —more than enough to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards.~~

While the startup is still in its growth phase, the article meets Wikipedia’s requirements for notability, with reliable sources providing verifiable information. Keeping it as a stub allows room for future updates as the company continues to grow and achieve new milestones. Jellymanpro (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Sock strike. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found more sources about the computer virus of that name than I did about the company (didn't find any on the company). Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. The sources cited in the article all appear to be press releases/paid placement. Schazjmd (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plenty of advertorials like these but nothing meeting ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2025 (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 23:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musos Awards

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

Non-notable award. No significant non-routine coverage in reliable sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Awards. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The awards ceremony is making a comeback this year with reliable notable press surrounding the event and notable celebrities in attendance Jpruit2 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The awards ceremony is making a comeback this year with reliable notable press surrounding the event and notable celebrities in attendance. Jpruit2 (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this! The award is gaining significance with a notable passed linked to Soccer Six, both of which are making notable returns this year Jpruit2 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - from what I see online, such as this news story from 2013, these awards have not been awarded every year. There's not been a lot of coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:CRYSTAL. Looking into the past, I still see little coverage. I might look forward, but Wikipedia doesn't. Bearian (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearian non notable award fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leib Ostrow

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

Not sufficient on WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCER. Royiswariii Talk! 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United States of America. Royiswariii Talk! 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Michigan. Royiswariii Talk! 16:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete I was able to find this Forbes article and this Los Angeles Times article, but other than that doesn't really meet WP:GNG. The article is also POV in nature. TNM101 (chat) 16:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP without citations. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John James Fox

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

Lack of notability, unreferenced; looks like it was created by COI editors; ELs old and dead (removed some). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is a decade out of date, with no links to any of the musical acts to show notability. I've never heard of any of them. No sourcing that I can find for this person. Not sure what's left, delete this and be done. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2025 (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. If Reywas92 (or anyone else) wants to push for a merge, they can go ahead. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1882 in Scandinavian music

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

We have articles for 1882 in Norwegian music (where this article was an unattributed copy from), 1880s in Danish music, 1882 in Finnish music and 1880s in Swedish music. Comparable to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 in Scandinavian music. Fram (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reasons:

Fram (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination appears to have been made because User:Fram failed to notice previously that the article existed and doesn't believe that Scandinavia is a clearly-defined region. This isn't a copy of 1882 in Norwegian music; in fact, content of that article has been copied from 1882 in Scandinavian music just to try to prove a point. Who is going to maintain all these "Music in" articles for separate countries? Will they even be completed? Deb (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2017 version of 1882 in Norwegian music [3]: in your article 1882 in Scandinavian music you have the same three entries with the exact same reference (even down to the copied access-date). Please tell me how you achieved this without copying the older Norway article? Fram (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're not copies, they are used in a thoughtful way; the wording is not identical. Not that this has anything to do with the proposed deletion of the article. Deb (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 1881 in Scandinavian music to this nomination, as the same reasons apply. Fram (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- in a previous version of this article, now at 1880s in Danish music, I had removed an entry where the sources indicate that the year is unknown (early 1880s), not certain to be 1881; another entry where the only link with 1881 is that the much earlier event is described in a letter from that year, hardly something important for 1881; and had corrected the title of a work. The claims of "Who is going to maintain all these "Music in" articles" when they are started as unattributed copies of someone else's work, and then expanded with such entries, ring rather hollow. Fram (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Once again you are being careless with the truth. The only reason these single-country articles exist is that you have just created them in order to make a point. There is simply not enough material to build them. Deb (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The Norway article existed long before you created the Scandinavia one. As you are well aware of course, since you started your creation by copying entries from that page with minor adjustments. And the suggestion below, which I already did in part, is to change them into decades-articles, because they will otherwise indeed be rather empty. Fram (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  See User talk:Knuand#2016 in Scandinavian music for a full explanation of why these articles exist. Deb (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just don't see the justification for a page, or any compelling reason to intersect Scandinavia, music and an individual year. Moreover, Finland was a part of the Russian Empire at the time. Geschichte (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, it was the Grand Duchy of Finland - that's why it's not appropriate to create year articles for Finland before this date, as Fram is attempting to do. Deb (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Years of the 19th century in Finland. Fram (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that proves my point. Deb (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge If Scandinavian music is an entity itself, then the national articles should be merged to the regional ones. If the national identity is more important, then the regional article should be deleted. There's not a need for this sort of duplication. Either way, for this kind of narrow topic, I'd rather see them as 1880s in X music instead of individual years; when there's not enough info for standalone articles, presenting them with broader context is better. Reywas92^Talk 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, I started with individual years but have changed some into decade articles, will probably do the same for the other ones. Fram (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, your plan is to remove individual year articles and put the material I've already created into decade articles. And what are you going to do about the years between 1882 and 2009? I'm not going to do the work for you. Deb (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to create the articles in the way consensus seems to be trending (not for Scandinavia as a whole, but by country), then you don't create these articles, simple. No idea why you only want to do this if it can happen as "year in Scandinavia" and not as "decade in Denmark" and so on (which will result in half the number of pages, should make life easier). Fram (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, great, let's just have an article for every ten years and leave out all the detail. But where does that leave your argument about "duplication"? Deb (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deb. As far as I can tell from what I found in Google Books, "Scandinavian music" is a thing. You'll find books on "Scandinavian music" generally, and comments such as "Scandinavian music as a whole" [4] and "Scandinavian music . . . is distinctive" and is "a school": [5]. You will find, even in English, Billboard spotlight "review of the year" articles on Scandanavian music in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1979, 1981 and probably every other year, though I can't search the entire run. And Scandanavia has had music periodicals since at least the 18th century: [6]. And I think that indicates that most years in Scandanavian music are likely notable. James500 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. And, for Reywas92, what merge target article are you suggesting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - James500s rationale is correct. The Google books source looks good. Clearly room for expansion as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2025 (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 am setting aside a couple of !votes that do not engage directly with the question of notability. Among the rest, the delete arguments assert that these pages are redundant to country-level pages for music by year: keep arguments assert that Scandinavian music as a whole has been treated as a topic by RS, and is therefore a viable subject by year. I see the arguments to delete as stronger on the whole, as the keeps largely address Scandinavian music rather than Scandinavian music by year, but I don't see enough of a tilt in the strength of arguments to determine consensus for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 in Scandinavian music

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

We have individual pages for 2015 in Danish music and the other 4 Scandinavian countries, there is no reason to have another page grouping these 5 as well, "Scandinavian music" is not some monolithic block or typical genre.

The same applies to these other years as well:

Fram (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Fram (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that the concept of "Scandinavian music" is a nonstarter. Though there are only 3 countries in Scandinavia and not 5, there is not that much overlap between the music scenes as to constitute a common sphere. The information about individual concerts and even festivals is not encyclopedically relevant and should be burnt with fire. Relevant albums should be mentioned in country-specific pages where applicable (i.e. 2015 in Swedish music – the albums might already be mentioned there, though). Since there is no one target to redirect to, delete all. Geschichte (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The creation of such articles should be purely country-based. Orientls (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The suggestion that we have articles on music for these individual countries is erroneous. Where are 2024 in Danish music, 2024 in Norwegian music, 2024 in Finnish music, 2024 in Swedish music? Scandinavia is as clear-cut a region as is Ireland. Why remove useful information with nothing to replace it? I'm baffled as to the reason for this nomination. Deb (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- 2024 in Scandinavian music is not up for deletion. For the nominated years, we do have individual articles for Norway, Denmark, ... Fram (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  So why would you delete a range of articles in the middle of a range of articles that are being kept up to date, in order to replace it with a range of incomplete articles whose creator was blocked years ago and hasn't returned? Deb (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other Scandinavia ones should later be deleted after the necessary country articles have been made, and no new Scandinavia ones should be created. Funny, by the way, that the original creator was blocked for copyvio, while you created e.g. the 2015 in Scandinavia page by an unattributed copy of all his work at the 2015 in Norway page. Fram (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut it out, right now. You haven't achieved consensus as yet. Deb (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "should later be deleted" =/= now. Fram (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These are lists that appear to fail the WP:NLIST criteria as a notable grouping discussed by reliable sources. Scandinavian Music is not a defined genre of music. Even the term Scandinavia is ill-defined - it may or may not include various territories depending upon the context. It seems these lists would be better if they followed the individual territories and can align with the current Wikipedia articles separated into territories such as Music of Iceland, Music of Finland, Music of Sweden, etc. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, this AFD is not formatted as a bundled nomination and so our closing editing tool, XFDcloser, will not recognize the closure decision as relevant to any articles but the one in the page title. Please look over the instructions at WP:AFD for formatting multiple article nominations so that this process is smooth for the admin who closes this discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I hope. Fram (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deb. As far as I can tell from what I found in Google Books, "Scandinavian music" is a thing. You'll find books on "Scandinavian music" generally, and comments such as "Scandinavian music as a whole" [7] and "Scandinavian music . . . is distinctive" and is "a school": [8]. You will find, even in English, Billboard spotlight "review of the year" articles on Scandanavian music in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1979, 1981 and probably every other year, though I can't search the entire run. And Scandanavia has had music periodicals since at least the 18th century: [9]. And I think that indicates that most years in Scandanavian music are likely notable. James500 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- But what's the point of just repeating the information on the standard by country pages into a grouped page? We are just increasing the maintenance cost for no good reason, it's not as if the entries in the Scandinavia pages are about some cross-Scandinavian things. The 2015 page Is an 80% copy of the Norway page, with some other stuff copied from the other country pages. It adds no value at all. Fram (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  As you are fully aware from the previous conversation, most of the years don't have articles for individual countries within Scandinavia. The time for this discussion is when you've created the relevant articles. Deb (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @James500:, I appreciate you finding those sources. Unfortunately, reading through them only seems to confirm that "Scandinavian Music" is an ambiguous lumping and the music articles are still written on a national basis instead. For example. the 1924 Herbert Westerby book that you cite has a brief page attempting to describe a few similar elements among Danish, Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian music -- and then spends the next 35 pages describing the pianoforte music broken down by each individual country. (Westerly does the same with his chapters combining Spain & Portugal and Austria & Germany.) I also read the 1973 Billboard Magazine and see it lumps the countries into a general section -- but all the articles and data are written about individual nations with Billboard using individual editors from each country. Unless Scandinavian Music can be defined as a unambiguous genre, it still seems to me that listing by individual country makes more sense. And removes the duplication that occurs in 2015 in European music. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - If sources say in express words that "Scandanavian music" is a thing, we may getting into the realms of original research if we try to dispute that. Our article on Nordic folk music says it is Scandanavian, and a search for "Scandanavian folk music" in GNews indicates that it still exists, see for example, this Scandinavian folk music festival in 2017: [10]. The 1981 Billboard article, for example, does contain comments about Scandanavia as a whole, such as those in the article "Copryrights gain value". That information could not be placed in the national articles. Music does not necessarily confine itself to national boundaries. The present Sovereign states did not always exist, their boundaries have repeatedly changed, and they use each others languages (eg Swedish is an official language of Finland, and is spoken in Denmark, and Finnish is spoken in Sweden). One can find, for example, articles on Swedish music in Finland, and Finnish musicians in Sweden: [11] (and that article says that a purely national perspective of music is not sufficient to address certain topics). I could argue that our national articles are "ambiguous lumpings". If, for the sake of argument, the quantity of cross-Scandanavian material were felt to be too small to support a separate article, then this page could be redirected without prejudice to 2015 in European music#Scandanavia, and the cross-Scandanavian material added there. That would not require either deletion or an AfD. I was not aware that we had articles on European music. Alternatively, one could merge into decades in Scandanavian music. James500 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you about music crossing national boundaries. That's my point. Your link to Nordic folk music is a good example because it also includes all the Baltic nations and Russia in a discussion of "Scandinavian folk music." Should Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia be included in the 2015 in Scandinavian music list because Finland is? Is Greenland included or excluded because it has a separate music tradition? We agree that music can be a mosh pit across national borders throughout the world. That is exactly what I mean by an "ill-defined lumping." The above lists in this AFD seem to require some WP:OR to determine what is or isn't included. It is better for these music lists -- which are only about dates & events -- to be grouped by well-defined national boundaries as individual nation lists (e.g. 2015 in Norwegian music, 2015 in Swedish music, etc.). That better meets the selection guideline in WP:SELCRIT and the grouping guideline in WP:NLIST. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - Scandinavian folk music is inherently Scandinavian, and should be included in this article, regardless of where it is produced. If Scandinavian folk music was produced in Adélie Land, it would potentially belong in this article. If some of the music in the Baltic nations and Russia is Scandanavian folk music, that does not imply that the rest of their music is Scandanavian. When ABBA perform in Britain, they are performing Swedish music, and that does not imply that Rod Stewart's music is also Swedish. If a reliable source says in express words that music is Scandanavian, there is no original research involved in its inclusion in the article. The national boundaries are not well defined in relation to music. The national boundaries give no help in classifying something like Finnish-Swedish music. James500 (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        The entries are not about Scandinavian folk music. And that would seem like such a small niche that a "year in x" page is not warranted. Geschichte (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. "Scandinavian music" is not a notable concept. Astaire (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all.James500s rationale and Google books research is what convinces me about notability. Also there is room for expansion.BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Digging through Google Books to find two publications from more than a century ago ([12] [13]) that briefly use the term does not demonstrate that "Scandinavian music" is a notable concept. Nor does it justify that we need an article about "2015 in Scandinavian music" in which any band from Scandinavia is included, when all the sources presented so far are about classical or folk music. Astaire (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting my comments by cherry picking from them. I did not "dig" through Google Books, nor did I find only two publications. In addition to the ten sources that I have already linked to directly, I could point to a mountain of other sources, such as Bo Wallner's Vår tids musik i Norden: från 20-tal till 60-tal (1968), which is 435 pages on the subject of Scandanavian music from the 1920s to the 1960s, and John Horton's Scandanavian Music (1963), and Yoell's The Nordic Sound (1974) which "aims to supply . . . information about Scandanavian music", or to a mountain of other comments such as "those characteristics which belong to Scandanavian music": [14] and references to the "characteristics of Scandinavian music" in other books, such as Britannica. If you are going to argue about the number of sources I have cited, I have to ask: How many sources do you want me to cite? Please specify the number of sources you want, and I will cite that number of sources.

The reality is that anyone with eyes can see that "Scandanavian music" obviously satisfies GNG and is obviously a notable topic. The real question for this AfD is whether the obviously notable topic of Scandanavian music is sufficiently redundant to other notable topics that the "discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article" in WP:N applies. That is the question you should address. James500 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @User:Vanderwaalforces: WP:RELIST says "relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure . . . repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice" (bold text and emphasis in the original). If the discussion has not reached a consensus after two relists, it is not likely to reach a consensus after a third relist either. It is not possible to force people to !vote. James500 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 Why do you think relisting a discussion for the third time is forcing people to !vote? That is a strange comment. Also, If the discussion has not reached a consensus after two relists, it is not likely to reach a consensus after a third relist either is this statistically correct? I mean, I can't link right off the bat, but I have seen discussions where the outcome was clear after a third relist. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Vanderwaalforces: WP:RELIST is a guideline and should normally be followed, because guidelines are supposed normally be followed. "I have seen discussions where the outcome was clear after a third relist" is not a good reason to deviate from the guideline, because you have failed to identify any exceptional circumstances that would justify deviation from the guideline in this case. The guideline would not say "in general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice" if there did not exist site consensus that third AfD relists are generally unlikely to produce consensus. If you think there are exceptional circumstances that justify the exceptional step of a third relist in this case, you should say what those exceptional circumstances are. (How is this AfD different to other AfDs?) If you think that the guideline should be changed to allow third relists without exceptional circumstances, Wikipedia talk:Deletion process is that way. You should not relist this AfD just because you want to take a chance and roll the dice in the hope that the third relist might produce consensus by sheer good luck. Relisting AfDs on the off chance that someone else might in theory show up and advance new arguments is a nuisance to editors who want the AfD to end and go away. I would rather delete the article than waste more of my and the other participants time by relisting the AfD again. I have seen discussions where a third relist produced no consensus, no further participants, or the participation of a bunch of socks. James500 (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 You are correct about what WP:RELIST says and that it is a guideline and should normally be followed. This guideline is one I am particularly familiar with (I am expected to be familiar with it seeing that I am an active participant at AfDs). This guideline does not prohibit me (or any other relister) from relisting a discussion for a third time, of course, I was expected to write on why I was doing so, so, I am at fault in that. I understand you !voted keep in this discussion, but I don't think relisting this discussion is enough reason for you to be this upset judging from the tone of your reply above. I have no particular interest in this AfD and that's it. FWIW, if I had closed this AfD as no consensus, there might just be users who would not be satisfied with the closure and take it to DRV and we'd spend another over 7 days there determining whether the closure should be overturned or endorsed, so what's the point? especially seeing that the last comment to this discussion before I relisted was a comment you made 3 days before and the discussion looked unfinished/ongoing. Thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IMO, to justify an article called "2015 in Scandinavian music", we need:

at least two sources
either from 2015, or retroactively about 2015
that are primarily about the topic "Scandinavian music".

As far as I can tell, none of the keep !voters have presented a source that meets this description. Astaire (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that is an accurate restatement of GNG, but I can produce such sources. Sources published in 2015 that are entirely about Scandanavian music include, amongst others: [15] [16] [17]. Those came up in about five seconds in a search of English sources in GNews. While we are on the subject, Scandipop is a genre, which further refutes your already inaccurate, and in any event irrelevant, claim above that "all the sources presented so far are about classical or folk music". James500 (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2025 (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) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nowa Aleksandria

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

Fails WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Poland. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The album is ranked #75 with an average user score of 79/100 (scored by 204 users of that page) among the best albums of 1986 on the independent website (no critic score, though).

https://www.albumoftheyear.org/album/36261-siekiera-nowa-aleksandria.php

The album has an article describing its history on the official webpage of the National Polish Radio Channel 4 (Czwórka) starting with the following words (in Polish): "It took less than two weeks to record one of the most important albums in the history of Polish music." https://www.polskieradio.pl/10/3966/Artykul/2641692%2CNowa-Aleksandria-Plyta-Siekiery-to-nie-tylko-krazek-ale-zjawisko
- ^ User ratings are not used on Wikipedia for notability. So, even if it was ranked #1, that would be meaningless. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You people make me sick here. Go ahead and delete it. Verwolff (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was this comment really necessary? DonaldD23 talk to me 21:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a Polish band from the 1980s; many sources are likely to be offline. We do have the aforementioned Polskie Radio article, a review from KFJC, capsule reviews in a Polish Hifi magazine and The Rough Guide to Poland, and pl:Nowa Aleksandria (album) cites a five-star review in Tylko Rock issue 54 from 2000. The title song is discussed in Outside the "Comfort Zone": Performances and Discourses of Privacy in Late Socialist Europe pp. 184–185. I think that's enough to meet WP:NALBUM, but if not, redirect to Siekiera as WP:ATD, preserving the article history should someone locate coverage in Polish-language offline sources. Jfire (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This album seems to be fairly influential to the point that there are writings about its album cover: "One of the covers that has certainly remained in the history of Polish culture is the dust jacket of the Siekiera band’s album – Nowa Aleksandria" (Tański, Paweł (2018). WIZUALNY KOSMOS PŁYT - OKŁADKI ALBUMÓW MUZYCZNYCH. Przeglad Kulturoznawczy (36): 326-333). Why? I Ask (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Torn (Lisa Ajax song)

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

Only relevant for Melodifestivalen 2019, and hasn't received sufficient coverage otherwise. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these criterias at WP:NMUSIC. 2, The recording has appeared on Sweden’s national music chart. And within the Top10. 5, The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, yes Melodifestivalen which broadcast on the national broadcaster SVT and had millions of viewers. Criteria 6 and 7 also applies. Clearly also within WP:GNG. Clearly notable and relevant.BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its performance at Melodifestivalen counts against it, as the song is only ever mentioned in independent sources that cover Melodifestivalen 2019, not the song in its own right as is required for notability. For the same reason, reaching the top 10 isn't a sufficient condition as that's only an indication that such sources exist, but they don't in this case. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NMUSIC is pretty clear here. Its notable. I have improved sourcing as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Of the 7 sources currently in article, [7] is documentation of the song having charted. [3], [4], [5], [6] seem to be about Melodifestivalen 2019 in general: they provide routine info about the competition, like who was performing, how many points each person got, etc. Torn is given a passing mention and/or included on list of songs, as are all other finalist performers.

Sources [1] and [2] are behind a paywall for me, so if anyone can speak to extent coverage of Torn in those articles that would be very helpful for the discussion. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC -> "Articles [about songs] unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" (from WP guidelines). I don't think it can be argued that a song being performed at Melodifestivalen makes it inherently notable, and I can find no signif coverage of Torn, nor any notable covers or independent analysis. I also see another contender for delete (Awful Liar) on Lisa Ajax's page, which has very similar problems to this article... InsomniaOpossum (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC is pretty clear. The song is notable. On several points as mentioned in my Keep rationale. The sources are clear on providing facts for the points on WP:NMUSIC. I stand by my Keep opinion as well. It was a Top 10 hit in Sweden, and performed in the semifinal, Second Chance round and the final of Melodifestivalen which is a major deal in Sweden.BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article have been improved since nom.BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC as stated above in my rationale is crystal clear. This song is notable per several points at the ”Recordings” criteria. Clearly notable. And sources to match. My Keep stance remains.BabbaQ (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
repeating your argument for keep at each relist is bludgeoning. Please stop. You have made your case, but consensus is not clear and we need to hear from other editors. Star Mississippi 13:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Simply meets WP:NSINGLE #1 for charting number 9 on a national chart. The position it charted clearly makes it notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2025 (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. There isn't even agreement on a Redirect target page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian phonk

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

Expired then contested PROD. Concern was: The article's text is overly promotional and almost all claims failed verification from cited sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phonk#Subgenres – As WP:ATD. The rhythm is not notable for its own article, but it can be mentioned in the aforementioned section. Svartner (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep or soft redirect to wikt:Brazilian phonk. Phonk editors rejected it within the subgenre section. It will probably never be there. Maybe in Funk carioca. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:16, 24 January 2025 (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. I am entirely discounting the nominator's opinions, but even among the other !votes there is clear consensus that there is not substantive coverage of this term. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Cool

Stub breaks WP:NOTNEO; it should be a Wikitionary entry, not an article. The exception would be if it was a frequent-use neologism, whereas this term is not frequently used in WP:RSs. See WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Essentially the entire text of this article is already repeated in the second part of the lede of Jihadism. --OrebroVi (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the rationale. This was merely a fleeting neologism that never gained serious currency. The timing is probably key. A few sources mentioned it in 2014, and then ISIS took off, so there wasn't anything remotely cool about the popular conception of Jihad any more and the term swiftly died a death. If later sources existed that examined this demise, it would make for more of a subject. As it is, it's simply a meme that never really took off and doesn't really merit a standalone page. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Politics, Terrorism, Fashion, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikitionary, then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom; should be on wiktionary, if anyhere. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DICDEF. I see a mix of good and terrible sources. If you take out the unreliable New York Post, Washington Times, and social media, you're left with less than a bare stub. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (The nom is a multi-account block evader - now blocked - who is abusing AfD.) The article currently has EIGHT sources in the reference section; plus many more are available in books and papers. I would add them, but it would be ref bombing. The article does not require "serious currency" to be a notable. In fact, it's an academic concept, which rarely have serious currency. The reference to "Cool" is intentional because that is the concept at work, but it's not a term coming out of pop culture itself nor intended by part of pop culture ie. to have serious currency. This Wikipedia article was cited in the book Compassionate Counterterrorism (2019), so presumably our deletion here would negatively effect the academic literature on this topic. It has significant coverage in Barnhart's Never-finished Political Dictionary of the 21st Century (2016), The Future of Terrorism (2018), Committee on Homeland Security (2014). The point here is that notability does not expire, even if you believe the term never caught on. -- GreenC 03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those works are from reputable academic publishers. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are reliable sources. GNG doesn't say "source must be a reputable academic publisher", whatever that means anyway. -- GreenC 14:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you claim something is an academic concept you need to produce academic sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make to notability? None. Your creating requirements unsupported by guideline or policy. -- GreenC 03:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To establish consensus either way on GreenC's defence offered, which Iskander323 has replied to. Further input on this issue by other editors would be great and might allow for a clearer consensus to be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wow, this term hasn't aged well... Briefly used in the 2010's then, never went anywhere. More of a cool new word than anything notable at this point. Brief uses of the word, then nothing since. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not expire. -- GreenC 03:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it wasn't notable then either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an opinion, but 8 sources then, plus more later. What do you require? How about something from the Washington Post in 2009:
"They use hip-hop elements for some who relate to that." Bray said "seductive videos" gradually lure young people, building outrage over atrocities committed against Muslims. Extremist videos "play to what we call in the Muslim youth community 'jihad cool' -- a kind of machismo that this is the hip thing to do."

Something "we call in the Muslim youth community". Are you down with that community, do you know anything about it. When you don't know about something, we rely on reliable sources. And reliable sources are telling this is well known within the Muslim youth community. You can disagree, but do we trust your personal opinion, or that opinion of those within the community who use the term. See WP:SYSTEMIC. -- GreenC 16:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I took a look at GreenC's sources. The Compassionate Counterterrorism source just cites the Wiki article. As for the "significant coverage", the first of them is a dictionary entry, another of them uses the word once in a section heading but says nothing subsequently about the "jihad cool" concept, and the third is a brief mention in congressional testimony, which is not a reliable source even if it was sigcov. (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting the sources:
- A "Political Dictionary" is not actually a dictionary, in the sense of a regular dictionary. The author assembled a relatively small selection of terms and wrote mini essays about those terms, all of which have common themes. It's not like Websters or OED which are broad and take in everything, it's selective.
- "Compassionate Counterterrorism", I mentioned above: "This Wikipedia article was cited in the book", it's concerning we would damage the trail of footnotes by deleting the article making future researches ability to read the Wikipedia article difficult to impossible.
- The Future of Terrorism, the entire section is about this concept, why the section header is titled "Jihad Cool".
- Congressional testimony by Committee on Homeland Security. I'm curious why you think this is an unreliable source. If your answer is PRIMARY then it's not primary and even if it was primary they are not unreliable, and are permissible. -- GreenC 03:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of WP:NOTDICT is that dictionaries don't count as coverage. The Future of Terrorism source does not discuss the "Jihad Cool" concept at all. If I'm wrong, please quote me where it does. (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, standard dictionaries do not demonstrate notability, but this is more like a monograph by a single author, it uses "dictionary" in its title but it's not like a normal dictionary.

The concept of Jihad Cool, as our article explains, is the use of popular culture (social media, videos, clothing etc) to make Jihadism seem fashionable and desirable to young people. This is what the book discusses. For example it says "ISIS propaganda expertly uses hip-hop music .. to convince young people .. " That is the concept of Jihad Cool, and why the section is titled Jihad Cool. -- GreenC 04:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that Isis doesn't "expertly use hip-hop music .. to convince young people .. " You're quoting out of context. It says this is a misconception, and also does not support the statement that this misconception is called "Jihad Cool". So it's not usable as a source without original research. (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if they agree with the concept or not, they are discussing it because clearly this is a notable subject. Are you seriously suggesting the section title "Jihad Cool" is completely random and has nothing to do with section? Can you explain why they called the section "Jihad Cool"? What is a typographical error, a sort of random monkey kind of thing? -- GreenC 16:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the source directly says what it means by "Jihad Cool", it is not usable IMV per our WP:NOR rules. Section headings don't often provide sufficient clarity of what the author means, and it's not safe to assume that everything contained in this section must qualify, or that Wikipedia editors can tell what does and does not. (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your making stuff up. The section clearly concerns Jihad Cool. It's titled Jihad Cool, it describes the idea exactly the same way our article does. It is sufficient for notability. -- ~ GreenC 16:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article? You mean the two paragraphs? I think this is rather the point. Where you seem to see something, a lot of us just see a nothingburger. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't AfD articles because they are stubs. The book we are discussing (have you looked at it?) contains multiple pages of content that can be used to expand our article. Plus the other sources linked here, not yet in the article. You even said, "If later sources existed that examined this demise, it would make for more of a subject." Precisely what The Future of Terrorism does, in part. -- GreenC 18:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to change my mind if more good sources were found and added to the article. I mean, don't ref-bomb, but show me the sources. Bearian (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If WP:ARS still existed ie. the core people there kicked off AfD by ugly ANI threads .. we would have no problem HEY'ing this article, working together as a team. For one person, it's a big lift of time and effort. So I can't say I will be able to do that right now. The end result of the demise of ARS was the loss of time and energy to improve articles in emergency situations with the clocking ticking.
- What I can say, sources are in the article including academic papers, Sources are in this AfD, including the Washington Post, and books. One person's improvement is another's ref bomb. AfD is not cleanup. etc.. the most important thing right now is to answer if the topic (not the article) is a notable one based on the sources.
- I'm also concerned by who initiated this AfD. Guarantee they have other accounts, and working with other editors offline. They were overly sure of themselves they could delete this article during pre-AfD discussions, not interested in discussing it. -- GreenC 16:29, 17 January 2025 (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 SNFU. A decision of what to merge from this article, if anything, can be done outside of the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slaveco.

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

A MySpace band that never released an album. Had several notable members that were in SNFU, but Slaveco. is only mentioned in sources as a minor, failed side-step to that project. There are literally no sources that focus on the band as an independent, notable entity. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies for repeating myself from last edit summary, the band is discussed in multiple WP:RSes -- including two books and a documentary, cited in the article -- and hence seems to pass criterion #1 of WP:BAND. Given this, the information is noteworthy; and it furthermore does not belong in the SNFU article, since this would bloat that article; hence, I submit that it needs its own article. Relatedly, I'm not convinced that the term "MySpace band" means very much or is as damning as I take the usage to imply, since numerous bands great and small from the aughts had MySpace accounts. But I understand the editor's concerns and maybe we can see what others think. In any case, I vote keep. CCS81 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two books by the same author and a documentary that all mention it briefly as one of Ken Chinn's small projects (along with The Wongs and Little Joe that also don't have articles). MySpace band refers to the fact that when I found the article, it still had a MySpace link (which relates to the essay WP:MYSPACEBAND). Why? I Ask (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand, but the "WP:MYSPACEBAND" joke article seems to imply that this term refers primarily to self-generated content, e.g., about one's own non-noteworthy garage band, as evidenced by the proliferation of the term "your" throughout the joke article. There is no such content in the Slaveco. article. Hence, I don't see the relevance of WP:MYSPACEBAND to the Slaveco. article, deleted dead MySpace link not withstanding. Better would be to defer to WP:BAND and the criteria for notability described there. CCS81 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me lay this out for all our sakes. Here are the statements in favor of deletion, as far as I can tell, and my responses:

Slaveco. is a WP:MYSPACEBAND. This, I think, is false, since the article seems to imply that this term is for band articles with self-generated content, which is not the case for Slaveco.
Slaveco. never released a record. This is true but insufficient for deletion, because WP:BAND specifies criteria for inclusion other than releasing albums.
Slaveco. is only minimally treated in the WP:RSes. This seems to be what is worth discussing. Slaveco. is the subject of one ten-page chapter (Chapter 12, pages 196-206) of Walter 2020, which is a 17-chapter book. There is further discussion in Walter 2024, but it only spans about five pages. The editor in favor of deletion seems to suggest that this is insufficient for C1 of WP:BAND, whereas my argument is that it is significant coverage that is independently noteworthy and would be too bulky to fold into the SNFU article or articles about any of the individual members. On this, I think, the discussion should be focused. I hope this is helpful. CCS81 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existing sources in the article, particularly the chapter Chris Walter's book, plus the following, are enough to establish notability per WP:GNG.

"Slaveco prepared to slay 'em". Nelson Daily News. 2004-04-22. p. 3. ProQuest 357444111.
PD (2004-04-15). "Mr. Pig stuff". Vue Weekly (443): 23.
Williams, Rob (2004-04-15). "Pig business: SNFU chief Chi branches out in Slaveco enterprise". The Winnipeg Sun. p. 61.

Jfire (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding these sources. I personally am still in favor of deletion because of WP:SUSTAINED. A few concert announcements from the same month don't do it for me. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can this not just be redirected/merged to a section under SNFU or Ken Chinn? I doubt anyone is going to care about a band that simply toured for a year outside of its relationship to those two. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two other notable members with their own articles, so I don't think it's right to imply that no one else is going to care other than those reading about Chinn or SNFU. I'm also not sure what the rationale for deletion is given that it passes WP:GNG. I see lots of "subjective" language ("I doubt...", "don't do it for me",) but can't see the rationale from the perspective of guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Maybe others have thoughts. CCS81 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local band that never released an album, nor did much of anything else required for notability here. No charted singles, no TV appearances, nor much media coverage beyond the local level. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly Redirect to SNFU as a compromise. This is a close call and that's why we have so many different opinions. This band did indeed get some newspaper coverage and was written up in histories of their local scene. But I agree with some of the voters above on how the band's coverage was largely gig announcements and histories of their associations with more established bands. Some will probably disagree, but Slaveco strikes me as a side project during a hiatus taken by SNFU, and the fact that they never released any recordings is crucial to the sustained notability question. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a redirect or a merge to a section over outright deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I can't see how WP:SUSTAINED is relevant. It says, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." The cited sources in the Slaveco. article are from 2004 (three newspaper articles), 2010 (documentary film), the 2012 book (though the 2020 edition is cited), and a 2024 book. The subject thus clearly has been covered in recent sources, not in a brief burst, in the 21 years since the band breakup. CCS81 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, two books that mention it as a sidestep to SMFU/Ken Chinn, which are the actual focuses of the books. The documentary is also about Ken Chinn, not the band. It's sort of like The Konrads: notable members, small regional coverage, but ultimately just a footnote of a larger project. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did say that, but this is a separate claim from invoking WP:SUSTAINED. You claim the article is relevant only to SNFU and Ken Chinn, but in response I note that the band has two other noteworthy members. WP:SUSTAINED concerns the timing of the coverage; in this case, that covers about 20 years, including the two decades after the band's breakup. CCS81 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Oaktree b. No charted singles, TV appearances, or much media coverage beyond the local level. Maxcreator (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This repeated refrain of "charted singles, TV appearances, or much media coverage beyond the local level" is strange. WP:GNG specifies other criteria other than charted singles and TV appearances. The connection between notable musicians and "TV appearances" is tenuous. The coverage is not "local": Winnipeg, for instance, is 2300 km (1,400 miles, or a 24-hour drive) away from the band's home of Vancouver. CCS81 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It comes form NPMUSIC or NPALBUM standards, we use them here. Oaktree b (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[18] linked here for helping my explanation. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the criteria, but they are used incorrectly here. There are 12 criteria cited at WP:GNG, and Slaveco. passes C1. You and the other poster specified only three of these criteria, including C2 and C12, skipping the other ten. The claim about the lack of non-local media coverage is false, as I say above. CCS81 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To reiterate, this page should not be straight-up deleted. It has at least two proper merge/redirect targets that it can be mentioned on. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The total of merge/redirect targets would be four: the three notable musicians, and SNFU. But these articles, particularly SNFU, will become unnecessarily bloated if we dump all this information into it. Better to keep it separate. CCS81 (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SNFU is only around 3,000 words at the moment; adding around 300 words will not make it too bloated. It is a fairly simple fix to add a blurb on either of the two pages that "Ken Chinn formed Slaveco. with Jay Black, Matt Warhurst, and Shane Smith..." to mention the two other notable musicians. As of now, Ken Chinn#Personal struggles and third SNFU incarnation says something similar, so I would support a merge there. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 300 words on another band sharing members to the SNFU article would be way too many words compared to the amount of coverage the other subjects get. Compare their live album and reunion tour from 1991-1992, one of the most important aspects of the band's career, which is currently covered in 52 words in the article. If we give 300 words to every comparably significant event in the band's history, the article would be a whole lot longer than 3,000 words. This is why we need sub-articles like the Slaveco. article (along with the independent notability, as established within the article). CCS81 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2025 (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

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

[1] "En Midsommarnattsdröm by Håkan Hellström - Music Charts". acharts.co. Retrieved 2025-01-22.

[2] Lindqvist, Johan (2005-01-14). "Håkan Hellström | En midsommarnattsdröm". Göteborgs-Posten (in Swedish). Retrieved 2025-01-22.

[3] Engman, Pascal (2016-06-03). "Håkan Hellströms fejd som ännu inte har läkt". www.expressen.se (in Swedish). Retrieved 2025-01-22.

[4] "Nu anklagas Håkan Hellström för låtstöld - igen". www.aftonbladet.se (in Swedish). 2005-01-29. Retrieved 2025-01-22.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]