Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

WP:DSMUSICWP:DSMUSIC

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Music

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Under Pressure Tour (1983–1984)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOUR. The article relies entirely on user-generated sources (setlist.fm and greendaylive.fm), which are not reliable under WP:RS. There is no independent, verifiable secondary coverage establishing notability of the tour. The content may be merged into Dookie, but as a standalone page it does not meet verifiability or sourcing standards. Acrom12 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acrom12 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The mismatch between the article contents (Green Day's 1994 Dookie Tour) and the article title (a Rush tour from a decade earlier) is reason enough to remove this before any other consideration. The creator also created Draft:Grace Under Pressure Tour (1983–1984) (a repeatedly-declined draft that is about the Rush tour), and has acknowledged on the AfD talk page that the creation of the Green Day tour page on this title was because of a misclick, so this could fall under G7 (and possibly the "created in error" part of G6). I offer no opinion as to whether material on the Dookie Tour should be folded into the Dookie album article, but retaining the current article under this title is a non-starter. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Wcquidditch. I couldn't find significant secondary coverage of the tour. If it's kept, it should as noted be moved to Dookie Tour. Wikishovel (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-lacking of SIGCOV to support its notability as a standalone even with additional searches, nom s suggestion of merge to the Dookie article is ok for me.Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Lorraine Crane states, fails WP:SIGCOV. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:01, 24 October 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Seagrave

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

He has a lot of credits to his name, but his work lacks substantial coverage. Gbooks and ProQuest, when searched for Daniel Seagrav, give mostly law-related articles. Gnews doesn't have anything —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music, England, and Canada. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two sources are insufficient for a BLP. Bearian (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:00, 23 October 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki camilleri

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

I don't believe the subject passes WP:GNG. Numerous links, but all passing mentions. I struggled to find any WP:SIGCOV. Equine-man (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Malta, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While some links might be passing mentions there are several links from reputable and verifiable sources highlighting the notability of the subject and benefit the article would provide to the public as a resource. Inclusion in the Forbes 30 under 30 list is significant along with BIMM article, articles in The Times of Malta etc. Music industry executives are often behind the scenes so understanding this nuance is important however the proof of such notable awards and career history collectively I believe creates enough there to confirm notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerfings (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that there is already Draft:Nikki Camilleri using the correct capitalisation, created by the same editor. PamD 09:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet the WP:BASIC requirements of a BLP. The draft version can stay, but it will be a hard task as things stand. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - those "Forbes 30 Under 30 list" awards are not a claim to notability. Keep the draft. Bearian (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable on listicles alone. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:40, 23 October 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 23:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pangako Mo

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

Contested WP:PROD. Fails WP:NSONG; very obvious WP:COI and almost all sources are just press releases and are not WP:SIGCOV. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 23:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Philippines. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 23:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage in generally reliable media indicating a public success and the mildly significant awards---may I suggest a redirect and merge (in)to Joice Espinoza - the target I suggest is currently a redirect here because I have redirected it to this page indicating the redirection could also be the other way around (which seems more appropriate indeed). So basically it's a redirect inversion (see this version for example) that I am suggesting, coverage being more extensive and detailed about her than about the single.--e.ux 11:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSONG. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 18:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NSONG. I don't think awards can be helpful to retain the article and besides it is COI. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article fails both WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. The only coverage is routine entertainment reporting (e.g., ABS-CBN, Manila Bulletin) and primary award listings, which do not constitute significant, independent secondary sources. There is no evidence of charting, critical reviews, or substantial coverage that would establish notability for the song.Acrom12 (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The song has received attention--but it looks like most of the attention is from social media and weak secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSONG as already mentioned. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:23, 23 October 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 23:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian Hot 100 top-ten singles in 2025

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

Bundling

Per the same reasons as previous discussions. There was generally no precedent for top-ten lists. I've been told G4 is too dissimilar as some years/pages were not in the original nomination. Justi yaya 21:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously WP:INDISCRIMINATE listcruft. Almost identical to the articles unanimously deleted in the AfDs you mentioned. Somepinkdude (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As above and in the previous linked discussion, listing every song that made into the top ten is too WP:INDISCRIMINATE Mgp28 (talk) 15:08, 25 October 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!} 23:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Sobhani

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

Fails WP:GNG on the basis that there is no significant coverage on her. She has passing mentions in news articles on the events she's organized, like the Live 8 and Live Earth benefit concerts and a concert for the 2010 World Cup, but their focus is usually on the event itself. This is evident in the sources currently used in the article. There exists some news/tabloid coverage on her past relationship with Coldplay singer Chris Martin, but none of them really focus on her, and notability is not inherited (WP:NINI) from a higher-profile figure like him. Bridget (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Arts, Music, Visual arts, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Bridget (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails in WP:GNG owing to failed WP:SIRS and WP:VRS. Almost all the sources are passing mentions, none of them have a SIGCOV about the subject. As of the sources regarding her relationship, WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Tried to find a suitable page for a redirect, but nothing deemed as a fruitful target. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:17, 18 October 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 Mayhem (Lady Gaga album). (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blade of Grass (song)

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

Lacks sufficient notability to justify a standalone article and should be redirected or merged with Mayhem. While a few sources are cited that focus specifically on this song, they all revolve around the same single quote from Lady Gaga. The song did not have significant chart placements, either. Since the article’s creation two weeks ago, the author has made no further effort to expand or improve it. Sricsi (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to delete the page altogether. This could be redirected to the album or moved back to the draft space. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mayhem (Lady Gaga album): Since all the sources revolve around one quote from the artist, it should be pretty obvious that this doesn't meet WP:NSONG, even though there is SIGCOV in RS. In this case, a redirect to the album would be appropriate. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 01:40, 18 October 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 00:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N3on

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/N3on

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

He might become notable in the future (he won't), but not right now. He doesn't even have a million subs on YouTube. Should we make a page for every toxic influencer whenever they start hanging out with famous rappers? Or washed up ones like Iggy Azalea. Strawberries1 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 16 October 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 October 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient and in-dept coverage by HotNewHipHop, Complex and XXL all of which are considered reliable by WP:MUSIC/SOURCE. This makes N3on pass WP:GNG, subscriber count or toxicity doesn't matter. Célestin Denis (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Complex article is an interview, which generally don't add notability. IgelRM (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. He just barely passes WP:GNG, if at all. He still fails SIGCOV and CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Coverage existing doesn't mean he needs an article. The fact this article is literally four sentences long probably goes to show that he's not notable, too. Strawberries1 (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is not allowed to make a second !vote, so I have crossed this out. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient significant coverage. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely any info, I don't think this guy is notable enough if they couldn't find any more info. Starry~~(Starlet147) 16:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also,If the only notable thing they did was hang out with a couple more popular people, like what Strawberries1 said, He isn't that notable at all. Starry~~(Starlet147) 17:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4808:53F2:E200:F017:EC5:F05B:E52B (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's some stuff there, but I am unconvinced he passes WP:NENTERTAINER. Probably WP:TOOSOON. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I googled couldn't find anything that made him notable in terms of secondary sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:NCREATIVE. Svartner (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only heard of him being a jerk to a fellow streamer and they don't stream what they claim any longer (they are now an IRL streamer), nor would streaming with now imprisoned figures clinch N/GNG (nor would you want to have that in the lede?). Nathannah • 📮 16:17, 24 October 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. Also noting that the SPI linked in this report showed that all three editors arguing Keep are related to each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Ismene Chitty

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

Lack of WP:SIGCOV or any news coverage I can track down. She may meet number 12 of WP:MUSICBIO, worth noting. Although featured in the Sydney International Piano Competition, it doesn't seem as if she won an award there. jellyfish ✉ 02:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Australia. jellyfish ✉ 02:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prolific output. Sydney International featured some of her works, she herself did not participate. Authoritative3 (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)— Authoritative3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete created by a single purpose account so possible promotion. Also per WP:NOTRESUME. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me improve the structure of this -adding categories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breville33 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: single purpose account has reverted all attempts to improve the article.Grahame (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She is listed in various directories of Australian pro musicians and I found one softball interview at [1]. But she has no significant media coverage and this article is a pretty shameless attempt at a resume that violates WP policy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep:People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.She has multiple independent publishers promoting her music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authoritative3 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC) — Authoritative3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Okay. Can you provide links to any of those secondary sources? Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catalogue entries

Library catalogues she is listed in :

National library of Australia - 39 results !

Search | Catalogue | National Library of Australia

If you search Worldcat -

You will find her works listed worldwide in notable and reputed libraries

Gina Ismene Chitty - Search Results

You will find 73 results of catalogued works -

Just checking one work - locations listed just for one work in Australia alone - in 43 libraries !

The orangutan boogie dance : for piano | WorldCat.org

Listed in 43 libraries. In

State Library of New South Wales

blic

ACT Library and Information Service

Belconnen Library

State Library Victoria

SLV; VSL; State Library Victoria

State Library of Queensland

SLQ, QSL

State Library of Tasmania

State Library of South Australia

Library & Archives NT

State Library of Western Australia

Alexander Library

Edith Cowan University Library

ECU Library

Worldwide :

Notable universities:

The Juilliard School

Lila Acheson Wallace Library

Borrow from Shenandoah University near Washington, District of Columbuia

University of Virginia

University of Virginia Libraries; University of Virginia Library; UVA Library

Lebanon Valley College

Vernon and Doris Bishop Library

Muhlenberg College Library

Trexler Library

New York University

Elmer Holmes Bobst Library

British libraries on this link :

The orangutan boogie dance : for piano | WorldCat.org

And much more !

Do you research please before commenting that she is not listed in secondary sources/

Please note: there is not even a self published website of hers Authoritative3 (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think you misunderstood my question or I didn't word it clearly. I can locate two interviews with presumably music magazines and nothing else aside from posts on Facebook regarding the subject and Wordpress interviews. Please review the general notability guidelines along with notability regarding musicians. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A composer is notable on Wikipedia if they meet at least one of several specific criteria, such as creating a composition that has received significant coverage in reliable sources, has been performed in a notable venue, or has been the basis for another notable work. Breville33 (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A composer is notable on Wikipedia if they meet at least one of several specific criteria, such as creating a composition that has received significant coverage in reliable sources, has been performed in a notable venue, or has been the basis for another notable work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breville33 (talk • contribs)
Keep:Internationally performed composer who has contributed a large number of works which are unusually totally innovative in the Australian repertory soundscape. Vibrant, energetic, technically demanding and the composer also illustrates all the covers of her publications. WP:MUSICBIO contributed to research on diaspora - she has also performed major piano concerti and yes, finalist, winner in piano competitions but this is not about pianism - it is a compositional output. The article needs proper formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiagnosticAce (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC) — DiagnosticAce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What competitions? Can you provide any link to these? Are they notable competitions? Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see an up and coming but ultimately run of the mill pianist, one of thousands in Australia and millions across the world. Many music writers have publications in World Cat, but that's not significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~:I reiterate - NOT pianist, but composer.
significant coverage in reliable sources include performances of the works- internationally or nationally.

Not many composers have their works performed internationally- and not many composers have a large number of works. If they do, they are notable. Breville33 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)— Breville33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I struck the duplicate bolded keep. The closing admin obviously will not do a head count of keeps Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, an SPI came up as confirmed. Sock strikes may be in order. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please transfer this article into a space where it can be edited - not sure how to do it - into what they call a “ sandbox?” So I could have it edited before publication.

Could you please instruct me -

1: How to save the article into a new private space on Wikipedia where it could be edited

After which, please go ahead with the proposed deletion.

Thanks Breville33 (talk) 02:29, 23 October 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.

Benümb / Pig Destroyer

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

Fails WP:NALBUM; no notability aside from one Exclaim! article about the album. No obvious WP:ATD since it's a collaboration between two bands. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 03:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 03:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe Pig Destroyer discography since that band has a majority of the album, is the one that has a chronology box and a discography page that includes this album? Katzrockso (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: A redirect would be unhelpful to readers in this situation per WP:XY:
Redirects…that could equally point to multiple targets are commonly deleted, as there is no way to determine which topic a reader is searching for. In these cases, search results may be more helpful, allowing the reader to make the decision.
Left guide (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Striking "delete" !vote in light of sources presented below. I can't vouch for their reliability, but want to allow others a chance to review, and don't want to stand in the way of consensus. Left guide (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per WP:SPINOFF, as there is nowhere to put the information without duplicating it, with this article serving as a good reference to the album from the other bands on the split itself. I would generally say this should be merged however there is nowhere for this to go. Debatably weakly notable per the non exhaustive small list of sources i found, unless I'm missing something. With any inherited notability from the two bands, I'd say it's good enough for mainspace, with work. [2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] DarmaniLink (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM or redirect to Pig Destroyer discography. We shouldn't keep something just because it's hard to choose a redirect target. The sources aren't there to justify a stand alone page.4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources boil down to CMJ magazine, really, and that's not as in depth as you'll need. No evidence of a chart position, no sigcov so delete. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Operación Triunfo (Argentine TV series). (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Basso

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

A biography of a living person article that was started in 2006, and has no real sourcing (besides discog). It has been tagged "BLP source" since March 2019. Claims to be a noted musician but I am not finding sources, this article fails WP:GNG. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and Television. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Operación Triunfo (Argentine TV series): Struggled finding sources on this one, as there seem to be others who share his name. I did find two interviews [8][9], but they alone only wouldn't be enough to establish notability. There's no Spanish language version of this article either, despite being from Argentina. Nil🥝 22:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested is appropriate here. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- to Operación Triunfo (Argentine TV series) would be a sensible ATD given the subject's description, to note the subject is already listed in List of Latin pop artists. Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:56, 17 October 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 Reba McEntire albums discography#Compilation albums. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Reba McEntire

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

Fails WP:NALBUM; no notability aside from one review from AllMusic. The album did chart, but charts are not an automatic golden ticket to notability. Suggesting a redirect to Reba McEntire albums discography. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 18:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 18:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reba McEntire albums discography#Compilation albums per WP:ATD. --Mika1h (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Not independently notable, but, while quite the mouthful, is technically still a plausible search term and something worth mentioning in a discography article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 15 October 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 00:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Taylor (Singer-Songwriter)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sean Taylor (singer-songwriter)

Articles for deletion/Sean Taylor (Singer-Songwriter)

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

Note: The article previously deleted as the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Taylor (singer-songwriter) was certainly not identical to the current article, but it was broadly similar. The current article has fewer references than that one, but I have not checked their quality. Nor have I reviewed the reasons for deletion in that discussion to assess whether they still apply, but participants in this discussion may like to do so. JBW (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to meet criteria for WP:MUSICBIO or WP:SINGER. I did search for additional resources or information but could only find this: https://www.irishpost.com/entertainment/ten-minutes-with-sean-taylor-274568 Where it states he's been nominated for awards. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. jolielover♥talk 16:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) — moved to Sean Taylor (singer-songwriter) — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discography, awards, media and more references are added to the article, so keep it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodoklecksel (talk • contribs) 17:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly confident that being runner up for an award does not establish notability. I did minor fixes to the citations and information you added. My initial thoughts on the article are the same. He may have a promising career ahead of him, but I don't think notability is established. That's why I nominated the article rather than requesting speedy deletion though. Lets let the discussion play out. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are over two decades of international touring, festivals etc., opening act for numerous famous folk-, blues- and rockmusicians, publishing regular albums in collaboration with notable producers, reviews in many european musicmagazins... I think, there are many aspects to approve, that this professional songwriter is relevant and this article should stay in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodoklecksel (talk • contribs) 21:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I (successfully) nominated it for deletion last time round and am really disappointed to see it back with so little change, especially as its last incarnation had a WP:COI problem, being written by the subject itself. Comes nowhere near meeting WP:SINGER. I would like to know how the creator of this article became aware of its subject. Orange sticker (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD so Soft deletion is not an option. I also think there is an unbolded "Keep" here in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sean Taylor (singer-songwriter) first then DELETE so that both Articles for deletion discussions are linked to at the same talk pages if anyone tries to make this page again. 147.161.236.94 (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not satisfy WP:NSINGER. – Meena • 22:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG I couldn't find enough sources and also does not satisfy WP:SINGER Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 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 don't see a consensus emerging here after another week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music on demand

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

Feels redundant to music streaming service. Tone is a bit off, and working this into music streaming service with inline citations may be better. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So, streaming music. Delete, the information is largely already explained there. This feels like an old wiki article with no inline sources that hung around, and has had something added from 2023. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A relic of early Wikipedia, and since nobody calls it "music on demand" anymore (if they ever did), a redirect seems to serve little purpose. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strong oppose deletion. This may be an old term, but it is still in use and is an encyclopedic one and we should cover it. Further this term is not synonymous with streaming. Streaming refers to a delivery method for multimedia (ie an Applications of distributed computing) where as "music on-demand" is a business model which uses streaming (but also downloading). They are related but not the same. Napster for example was a music-on-demand business that did not use streaming technology; only downloading technology. Note that this source and this source defines music-on-demand as encompassing both streaming and downloading music so it actually a larger topic than streaming. The distinction is also discussed in this book which discusses the difference between live streaming and on-demand platforms. This is important because laws have been built around this broader category governing copyright infringement over the internet. The history of the internet and music streaming/downloading would reasonably cover this term. Here is an entire book devoted to this topic using this language: Haller, Albrecht (2001). Music on Demand: Internet, Abrufdienste und Urheberrecht. Orac. ISBN 9783700714729. PBS still uses the term for its coverage of music streaming. Government documents (and laws around streaming) (for example) use the term. The term gets used in academic publications on the music business and digital media and not just in the early internet era but in the last decade including in 2025. See for example [10], [11], [12], and [13], [14], [15].4meter4 (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick look through some of these sources, as well as some of my own. I don't get a sense of a stable definition or concept. For instance, this book says "The broadcast and on-demand models are governed by different rules, but they share one important feature: neither depends on downloading files or finding storage space on a personal computer." This seems to contradict your definition of MOD being a catch-all for downloading and streaming. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably some variations across countries. Overall I think I accurately reflected the predominant view in the literature. Regardless, that hardly discredits this as not deserving of an article.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, conflation with streaming services serves to suggest this is redundant or somehow a duplicate topic when that isn't the case. It covers a concept that was more broadly prominent in the 2000s and replaced by streaming, rather than being the same thing. And there's no overall article for on-demand distribution as far as I can tell (this seems like an oversight). While the article could use improvement, it's not unsourced and this shouldn't really serve as grounds for deletion. KaisaL (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the arguments from 4Meter4 and KaisaL. But also, as a matter of policy, halo effects like tone and marginal inline citations are specifically matters for editing, and not for AfD nominations. Even “redundancy” is a marginal reason, as long as there is some basic difference between treatments of the subjects of the articles, such that the articles are not mostly direct copies - and there is enough difference between “Music on Demand” and “streaming” (as those of us who were adults in the 90s will remember) to warrant seperate articles. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research with no footnoting or clarity on what in the sources supports the content. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Lack of inline citations isn't a reason to delete an article, and a re-write could fix the problem of WP:OR. The term being outdated isn't a reason to delete, it's a reason to update the article and better explain the history of the term. User:4meter4 found many good sources which could be used to improve the article. Lovelyfurball (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Music streaming service. Looks like this was created in 2006 in anticipation of what became music streaming. That article was probably unknowingly created in 2009 when this could have been filled out and moved. The above make good points, but this looks like a fork of music streaming, which is a better article. So a redirect would solve every concern and preserve this page content and history. ←Metallurgist (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As explained earlier music on demand involves other types of applications other than streaming. Not all music on demand businesses used streaming technology, so redirecting there is not appropriate.4meter4 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 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!} 23:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos featuring nudity

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

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. First of all, BLP nightmare. So much stuff is NOT cited, and there are clear examples of things that don't even count as nudity. Second, this really isn't a relevant list topic. INDISCRIMINATE to a tea. Also full of WP:OR. I get that AfD is not cleanup BTW, but other than not being notable, claiming musicians are swimming around naked without a source probably isn't very BLP friendly. jolielover♥talk 14:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Sexuality and gender. jolielover♥talk 14:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 14:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this list seems indiscriminate and I don't see any reason for it to exist. Keep per below. This is my first time at AfD so let me know if I'm doing this right. Thanks! lp0 on fire (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC) fixed formatting at 14:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking part! Don't worry, you've done everything right :) jolielover♥talk 14:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with everything the nominator stated. I also don't see much value to this list existing, especially considering Depictions of nudity briefly covers the topic of music videos with more encyclopedic value and with proper sources. death pact (again) 15:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LINKFARM — Maile (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Delete per nom. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In my opinion, it seems sufficiently referenced, in addition to being of a defined scope. I believe it can be trimmed, but not deleted. Svartner (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The inclusion criteria can explicitly set the bar appropriately by demanding that nudity in the video of every entry was covered in reliable sources or has stirred controversy, was censored, etc., but the list as a whole is suitable, as sources addressing the topic as a set show- per WP:NLIST- https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/window-seat-to-justify-my-love-a-short-history-of-nude-music-videos-101830/https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/aug/08/naked-women-pop-videos-justin-timberlake https://popcrush.com/most-controversial-nude-music-video-moment/ and numerous lists such as https://people.com/music/wrecking-ball-anniversary-naked-music-videos/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/fully-exposed-a-brief-history-582438/feed/ and Sexual Teens, Sexual Media: Investigating Media's Influence on Adolescent Sexuality. (2001) - p. 256-257, Music/Video: Histories, Aesthetics, Media. (2017). Bloomsbury Publishing, passim....

So Keep. e.ux 08:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certain instances of nudity in music videos are notable, but I feel like overall, they should be mentioned in Depictions of nudity as notable examples. I do not think this idea has notability as a standalone list. jolielover♥talk 09:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree that these sources are probably enough to establish notability as a set per WP:NLIST; if not, I'm sure more sources an be found. Per WP:LSC (and in particular the comment on BLP in WP:CSC the current list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and needs substantial work, but if it were restricted to, for example, music videos whose depiction of nudity is independently notable, that would make sense. Listing all the examples in Depictions of nudity would probably end up bloating unnecessarily, so a separate article makes more sense to me than that. I think the correct course of action is to speedily delete most of the unsourced content per WP:BLP, add stuff back with sources, and see if there's enough for an article. Switching to keep for now. lp0 on fire (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Depictions of nudity: Very helpful list, but there are literally 4 citation needed tags in the article, which doesn't help its case with meeting WP:NLIST standards. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 20:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most uncited stuff doesnt have the tags. If we tagged all of them there would be a whole lot more. jolielover♥talk 01:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the other deleters. This is a WP:LISTCRIT nightmare as a quick glance through the current state of the list will attest to. Exactly what counts as "nudity" is far from clear. I'd further oppose a merge to the "Depictions of nudity" article, since that already has a noteworthy example, and adding much more would certainly be UNDUE. It might be possible to write a proper standalone article about "nudity in music videos" or whatever, on its own, but this list isn't even a start on that. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Denman

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

Bass player that does not seem to be notable outside of membership of Sade. Prod declined due to many incoming links from Sade related articles. I think the Bass Player source is strong, but I cannot find additional sourcing that contributes notability to push the subject past WP:GNG. Mbdfar (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United Kingdom, and England. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 02:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I partially stubified this article, and it has so many incoming links. He's had a notable career both before and after being part of Sade's band. The article needs a lot of work, but it's not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of those links are from Template:Sade. This article needs sources, not just cleanup. Mbdfar (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I count 19 direct (non-template) links to this article from other mainspace articles. This should not be dismissed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found four of which that are outside of the umbrella of Sade. Three where the subject has been simply placed on a list, typically unsourced, and one trivial mention in prose. Mbdfar (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'll leave it at delete. Article feels too 'soapboxy' for me. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 23:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
@CREditzWiki, "Soapboxy" sounds like a fixable issue. Do you have a specific WP:DEL-REASON. ~Kvng (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck it through since I do not. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 02:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC):[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 03:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist meets borderline notability in my opinion per significant coverage in several sources. Article needs removing excessive material, yes, but this is not a reason for deletion. Silvymaro (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete He has worked with Sade among other notable acts and was apparently an integral part of creating her sound, so I want to keep the article but I can't find enough reliable secondary sources in searches to add to the page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sade (band). I can find no significant and reliable media coverage of his early band Pride, his childhood inspirations are non-noatble, and his other band Sweetback is a Sade side project that has some coverage but not enough to separate it from the main band. Therefore he has not achieved his own independent notability outside of Sade, nor does he need to because he has had a robust career with them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has enough notability in my opinion. Mag2k (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see no consensus but lots of opinions so let's make one more try to see if we can come to a rough agreement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is a good argument here that Sweetback is its own separate band. It has its own news coverage away from Sade (such as [16], [17], ); although it is often lumped in scholarly works like here. Some of the newspaper sources I added had lengthy focus on Paul Denman. Overall I think there's enough here for a stand alone article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4meter4 (talk • contribs) 28 October 2025
- Is that not the same situation as with Sade and the current AFD? Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and those sources are not significant coverage of the subject being discussed. If Sweetback is found to be independently notable, WP:MUSICBIO may apply, but that is not evident or established.Mbdfar (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4 this is at least enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:30, 29 October 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

Grosvenor Light Opera Company (via WP:PROD on 22 March 2025)
Zoo (Norwegian band) (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2025)
Funk automotivo (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2025)