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The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor (composer)

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

Article is a stub with only a single, non publicly accessible source. Googling to find other sources returns only pages which refer back to this wiki article. A GScholar search returns more evidence of mentions, but evidently only scarce evidence of this composer exists, namely a few compositions attributed to him; Lacking notability. Consensus seems clear. Nom withdrawn from my side. Athanelar (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Arts, and Music. Athanelar (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep a pointy nom arising from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borlet, with inadequate WP:BEFORE. It doesn't matter in the slightest that the only source used is "non publicly accessible". Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This nom is not WP:POINTy, I found both articles at the same time (because they reference each other) and thought both were lacking notability for the same reasons, so I made AfDs for both (after an initial erroneous draftification & reversion thereof) Athanelar (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Offline sources are still sources. A basic WP:BEFORE brings up numerous hits on Google Books, such as this [1] & [2]. Nil🥝 18:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source isn't displaying for me, but the second shows literally two results for 'Trebor' which appear to be plainly trivial and therefore don't meet WP:SIGCOV hence WP:GNG

I don't know if I'm not seeing something everyone else here is seeing but it seems obvious to me that all of the sources being referenced here are only passing/shallow mentions of Trebor and do not constitute 'direct and in-depth' coverage as required for notability. Athanelar (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm confused. The nominator says a Google search shows up no significant coverage in reliable sources – fair enough for a niche area like this – but then ignores material they did find on Scholar based on personal criteria? The volume of work does not matter – if that was the case, Mahler would be far less notable than Segerstam or Sorabji. Only the coverage of the composer is important, and in case that is still in doubt despite the multitude of references in Grove, I've included several extras below. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apel, Willi, ed. (1950). French Secular Music of the Late Fourteenth Century. Mediaeval Academy of America. OCLC 1049538.

Apel, Willi (January 1978). "French, Italian and Latin Poems in 14th-Century Music". Journal of the Plainsong and Mediaeval Music Society. 1: 39–56. doi:10.1017/S0143491800000052.

Plumley, Yolanda (August 2003). "An 'Episode in the South'? Ars Subtilior and the Patronage of French Princes". Early Music History. 22: 103–168. doi:10.1017/S0261127903003036.

UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but then ignores material they did find on Scholar based on personal criteria?

Not personal criteria, but rather that all the mentions of Trebor that jumped out to me on Scholar were trivial allusions in the vain of "we have some compositions attributed to this composer called Trebor who we otherwise know nothing about," which seems to me to not constitute WP:SIGCOV for a biographical article about Trebor.
I'm not denying that mentions of Trebor exist in literature, I'm simply not seeing significant coverage to justify notability. Athanelar (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I could've been clearer. When I spoke about "personal criteria", I meant in relation to your comment on the "scarce evidence ... namely a few compositions attributed to him" and how that doesn't supercede legitimate SIGCOV. I'm glad to see that's not what you meant, but still I disagree on your evaluation of the literature. I have no idea about your personal situation and access to research databases, but from the materials I found and linked above:
Apel (1978) contains a couple pages on Trebor's work

Apel (1950) is more diffuse, but contains coverage on Trebor's work in relation to the style of the time

Plumley (2003) contains over 50 mentions of Trebor, with biographical information mainly concentrated in a five page section on the courts of Foix, Aragon and Milan
I continue to belive that when combined with Grove, this is a pretty clear pass of GNG. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of significant coverage on this musician, including https://www.jstor.org/stable/20532305 ; https://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/abs/10.1484/M.EM-EB.3.2669 ; https://www.jstor.org/stable/20532306 ;https://www.jstor.org/stable/3686612 etc. e.ux 20:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The one English-language source here is an analysis of a work by Trebor, which doesn't seem to me to constitute evidence of notability for a biography of Trebor. "Trebor is the author of a notable work covered here and we know basically nothing else" does not make for much of a biography.

The full source isn't accessible to me, so I'm in no position to assess it properly; maybe you could point to some specifics as to how that source or the other sources here demonstrate notability for the biography in question (or don't; consensus here is evidently 'keep' in any case) Athanelar (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's obviously demand here among interested parties for information about this composer and his other identity to remain on Wikipedia. I'm still unconvinced of notability insofar as justifies a standalone biography article, but I can see how one can argue the notability of Trebor's work in the context of the Chantilly manuscript.

As an alternative to deletion, I propose either:

1. A merge of both Trebor and Borlet into the Chantilly Codex article (since in any case their main notability seems to be the inclusion of their work therein, and there is a lack of other biographical information to populate a standalone biography)

or at least

2. a merge of Borlet into the Trebor article, since the former is evidently regarded as another pseudonym of the latter.

pinging @Eva UX and @Johnbod and @UpTheOctave! as particularly passionate parties who may want to weigh in here. Athanelar (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A merge of both articles in the Chantilly Codex article would be, in my opinion, absolutely inappropriate; why look for an atd when a page should be kept? A merge of Borlet into Trebor might be possible but that's not the point here, I think and I, for one, would rather keep both as they are -knowing that a lot of authors think that the identification is correct/plausible/possible, though. In the present case Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:COMPOSER are met imv. e.ux 21:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comments above on Trebor's notability, I'm strongly opposed to option one. As for option two, I can certainly see the logic, but that should really be discussed at the relevant AfD. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merge of Borlet into the Trebor article. There isn't enough evidence that they are the same person. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Itzcuauhtli11, then please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borlet.

@Athanelar, would you consider withdrawing this nomination, by any chance, given the sources and arguments presented? e.ux 23:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the merge discussion in the AfD/Borlet page. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by other participants in this discussion - I had found https://www.jstor.org/stable/20532305 on a quick search. The Grove entry on the subject is some 678 words, with a bibliography of nine further sources. That seems like plenty of coverage to substantiate a standalone article. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There isn't much more references in the Catalan, French, Italian, Nederland and Japanese versions of the article, they all source the Yolanda Plumley one, but the Portuguese one cites 4 additional books. That alone should be enough to keep the article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked out the jstor papers linked by Eva_UX and there's more than enough scholar coverage to keep the article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 23:59, 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.

Borlet

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

Single, non-publicly accessible source. Googling to find other sources only results in sites which link back to this same page. No WP:NMUSIC or WP:V Athanelar (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. Athanelar (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor but notable figure, with highly authoritative source. A web-only search will not produce acceptable results in this area. It should not have been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists which is for visual artists only. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate a little more as to how it meets our notability standards? Is there really WP:SIGCOV? The very short stub essentially says "We know very little about him, including his name and identity. We can confirm he composed between 1 and 7 compositions." Is this really enough to support a stand-alone article? I'm struggling a bit to see the encyclopedic value of a short stub so devoid of substance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally apply exactly the same standards to medieval and earlier figures as to contemporary ones. The article probably contains everything that is known about him, which obviously is very little indeed. He was considered important enough to be included in the standard reference work, which in itself is probably enough for notability. There are thousands of comparable examples. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that its not likely to come across a 2025 New York Timess feature on a subject like this, but I'm also not convinced that mere mentions like that are enough to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. Are you alluding to some guideline I'm unfamiliar with or something? Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His own entry in the standard encyclopedia on the subject is not a "mere mention"; it's just that next to nothing is known, so the biographies there and here can't be any longer. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I'll reword my stance accordingly: I don't believe an entry in a standard encyclopedia is enough to establish any sort of notability standards, particularly when said entry is devoid of any real substance because nothing is known. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think notability is substantiated here. I checked GScholar just now and the mentions for Borlet are essentially all the same as the mentions for Trebor (composer) because they're believed to be the same person. Therefore at the very least I think a merge with Trebor is in order, but given that even the sources I can find for that article are essentially "some compositions exist which are attributed to someone called Trebor" I don't think we have notability in a Wikipedia sense here at all, so I think deleting both Borlet and Trebor (which I've also made an AfD for) makes sense. Athanelar (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is where I'm leaning too. I could technically see creating a redirect to Trebor, which pretty much already covers the (very little) verifiable information about Borlet, but the argument for Trebor's notability is pretty weak too. There's definitely not enough here for 2 standalone articles, though at least Trebor has verifiable information in it... Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against a merge, but you popular culture types need to understand that notability is not affected by whether there is information online or not. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast aspersions - no one has asserted sourcing needs to be online thus far in the discussion. That's not the reason you're getting pushback. You're getting pushback because you aren't actually citing or invoking anything. You just keep making WP:VAGUEWAVE WP:ITSNOTABLE WP:ATAs. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is the entry in the references section; there are books mentioned in Further Reading. Google Scholar has a considerable number of books with significant coverage on him; they include https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/early-music-history/article/abs/an-episode-in-the-south-ars-subtilior-and-the-patronage-of-french-princes/4F5EA81CC0345A850C971836859832A6 ; https://search.proquest.com/openview/d9810dfdb21e258c9b6bc2f87da5f874/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y The polyphonic virelai "He tres doulz rossignol" attributed to him is one of the most notable pieces of the genre. Plenty of other sources exist; https://www.persee.fr/doc/caief_0571-5865_1979_num_31_1_1185 and so on. e.ux 20:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV necessitates that the sources in question address the subject 'directly and in detail.'

The first source is about how these Medieval French sources have been preserved, and the latter literally says its aim is only to transcribe the unpublished chansons of the Chantilly manuscript.

To my eyes, the only relevance of these sources to Borlet/Trebor are that he is passingly mentioned within them as composer of some of these pieces, which is pretty plainly trivial coverage. The third source you've linked is a French-language source which I'm not equipped to assess.

Could you be more specific about how you feel these sources demonstrate in-depth, specific coverage of the subject? Athanelar (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They analyse his work -stylistically-; some dwell on his possible identification with other musicians -various authors support more or less assertively and with different arguments the Trebor hypothesis. These are no passing mentions, nor trivial coverage, and plenty of other sources exist. But as creator of one of the most notable virelai of the time, he could, one could argue, meet the specific notability guidelines anyway -like Wikipedia:CREATIVE; it may remain a short article -but it is not that short-;- if everyone agrees a redirect and merge to Trebor is better, it might be an acceptable solution too, but things are clearer this way -and fairer- imv; outright deletion would be absolutely inappropriate, I think; coverage on him in various other languages abounds, fwiw- and please also check the information in https://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/MMDB/composer/COM065.HTM e.ux 20:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also meets WP:COMPOSER..."Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music." e.ux 20:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trebor (composer). I came to this discussion via Trebor, who I strongly believe is notable: see my comments at that AfD. I think Eva's point on WP:NCOMPOSER carries some merit given the inclusion in Grove, so I'm somewhat opposed to outright deletion. However, from my literature review, Borlet clearly receives much less coverage than his doppelganger. There is also a lot of overlap – they may be the same person after all, and as such the vast majority of potential sources with more substantial coverage speak about Borlet in relation to Trebor. I do note the fairly imposing further reading section but, of the Chantilly scholars that speak of Borlet, Plumley, Brown, Goméz, and Reaney all treat him this way, while Earp and Apel (1 and 2) only give scarce passing mentions. So I end up here offering a middle ground with a merge: not on notability grounds or as an ATD, but per WP:OVERLAP. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quote from A Ballade for Mathieu de Foix: Style and Structure in a Composition by Trebor

"On Trebor/Robert/Trebol/Borlet, see especially Maria del Carmen Gomez Muntané, La Música en la casa real catalano-aragonesa durante los años 1336-1432, vol. 1 : "Historia y Documentos" (Barcelona, 1977), pp. 99-101.[3] The Chantilly manuscript attributes only a single realistic virelai to Borlet ("He tres doulz roussignol"), whereas Trebor is assigned six ballades and no virelais.

Since stylistic differences between genres are at least as great as stylistic differences between individual composers, it would be virtually impossible to make a convincing argument that the composer of "He tres doulx roussignol" was or was not the same as the composer of the six ballades on stylistic grounds alone. No music is known to be attributed either to Robert or to Trebol."

So two scholars say Borlet and Trebor are different persons. A merge wouldn't be appropiate. 23:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)~ — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. As noted above, I took both the Brown and Goméz sources into consideration when drafting my !vote. The justification for my arguement is not identity, as you infer. Most scholarship on Borlet is related to the possibility they were the same person: this shows they are "related subjects that have a large overlap" (WP:OVERLAP), which is enough reason for a merge on its own. Also, you are misreading the sources. Brown claims it would be virtually impossible to make a convincing argument that [Borlet] was or was not the same as [Trebor] (emphasis added). His phrasing leaves open both the possibility that they are connected or are not, which your conclusion incorrectly parses. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We don't need hard confirmation on this to warrant a merge or mention there, just that reliable sources cover them together, which they clearly do. The complexity of the situation can be covered in the prose. It'd be pretty easy to cover at the forefront of the article too, considering the lack of content. Even the sloppiest of merges wouldn't escalate the resulting article out of stub status... Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just clearly a case of consulting Google over subject-matter expertise. Any merging that might arise can and should be handled separately from this discussion on the talk page, based on scholarly consensus. Chubbles (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Trebor (composer) - basically I agree with UpTheOctave!'s analysis of the sources, and think that readers will be best served by a single article that covers the composer(s) and the scholarship surrounding whether they are the same person or not. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jolielover♥talk 18:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Trebor per previous discussion.

Athanelar (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Trebor (composer): Users UpTheOctave!, Eva UX, Sergecross73 and others have made good arguments about enough scholarly debate (although not enough historical evidence), so I think a deletion is not warranted. i agree that a merge with info on the identity controversy would be much better. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:18, 31 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 delete. Not seeing a consensus (or a policy-based reason) to merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luz A Salento Foundation

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

This article has only one dead source (no sources can be found on the Spanish article [4]), and reads as WP:PROMO. No reliable sources can be found in a quick Google search. All of the external links appear to be dead. JudeHalley (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Colombia. jolielover♥talk 02:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, and second the promo concerns too. Nil🥝 06:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is mostly unsourced; the only available information about the subject appears in a single book see – here. Morekar (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Salento, Quindío. We merged several arts organizations in California a few years ago, and that worked. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 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 03:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Des Demonas

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

There are two interrelated problems with this article. The first is that it does not speak for itself, because it does not show that the band satisfies musical notability criteria. The second is that this article was written by artificial intelligence. There are at least two indications that this article was written by artificial intelligence. The first is the use of asterisks for highlighting, in both the Notable Performances section and the Reception section. The second is the language of the Chart Performance section. The statement that the band hasn't charted is addressed to the operator. A human would omit that fact from the article.

This article was created in draft space, and then moved by its author to article space. It was then (properly) draftified by User:Timtrent. It was then "edited for notability", which appears to have been a reworking by the chatbot. It was then moved back to article space. It was then (properly) tagged by User:Theroadislong with {{ai-generated}} and {{notability}}. It may not be moved back to draft space unilaterally.

The band does not satisfy musical notability either before or after an attempt to "improve" it with a chatbot. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Washington, D.C.. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has all the hallmarks of AI generation. If retained this requires a total rewrite. However I am not persuaded that this passes WP:NBAND.The referencing is not of the quality required, not even The Washington Post reference which seems to be the best of the bunch 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AI slop. The "writer" couldn't even be bothered to remove the markup. Cortador (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Strangely, if the article were more human and honest, there might be a valid argument on behalf of the band's possible notability, as they were mentioned briefly in Washington Post and got a few fairly reliable album reviews. Unfortunately, none of those are robust enough to get the band over the notability hump if this were a typical deletion debate. As for this debate, unreadable AI slop makes the outlook for the band even worse. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: They probably would meet WP:NBAND#5, but the article needs to be TNTed as unreviewed AI slop. Nil🥝 06:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 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 redirect to Men at Work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Rees (bassist)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No in-depth coverage of life or career. Just passing mentions in the context of the band the Cars. Interviews don't count toward notability. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: he was a member of Men at Work, not the Cars. (No opinion on the article or its sourcing.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Men at Work, lacks independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Men at Work - His life after the band was described in a "where are they now" piece, upon which this WP article is dependent. But his activities outside of Men at Work are non-notable, playing in local bands and living the life of a non-celebrity. No independent notability outside the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Men at Work that's where he was notable but he didn't appear to anything warrenting significant coverage afterwards. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:58, 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. 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.

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. [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] 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 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 [11], [12], [13], and [14], [15], [16].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 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 [17], [18], ); 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)