Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

WP:DSMUSIC

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Music

Come Closer (album)

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

Debut album that fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find any sources about it other than profiles. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blutonium Boy

AfDs for this article:

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

Blutonium is German DJ. The article was nominated for deletion in 2008 and kept based on this source, which seems notable but doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. The other sources I found are: [1], [2], [3]. This self-published book mentions him in a list of hardstyle djs. German Music Archive doesn't give anything. It feels notable but notable sources couldn't be found. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Priyansh Jadav

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

Indian singer who doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't come up with any WP:SIGCOV. The is also a possible COI. The article was turned down at AfC several times, after which the creator move it to mainspace. John B123 (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Gujarat. John B123 (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article is about a singer who has been active since 2023 and has coverage on IMDb, YouTube, and Instagram. His performances, especially in dual male-female vocals and yodeling, have gained attention and are verifiable. References are being added to meet Wikipedia’s standards. The article is improving and shows potential for notability.

--13StudioPresent (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think I have to say this, but IMDb, YouTube (with exception for interviews as an additional source), and Instagram are not reliable sources. Nothing comes out in the Google news nor on the ProQuest. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everyoned

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

Everyoned is a supergroup that released one album in 2004. They have a micro article, and the only source could find is this. Two bandmates have a wiki page, so "Everyoned" can be redirected to one of them. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tim Kinsella, where the group is already mentioned and the found source in the nom could be used; a search on Newspapers.com turned up a couple hits in concert listings which confirm their existence, but nowhere near the SIGCOV required. Nothing on Google either. Jordano^5³ 19:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with redirecting Everyoned per above reasoning. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Festival4Stars

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

Singing competition that fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find significant coverage about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

50 Greatest Album Covers

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

No reliable sources cover this TV special, hence nom'ing under WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE check pulled up only forums discussing the list, and obviously we don't do WP:UGC. I would be in favor of retention if a few examples of in-depth discussion of the special in, say, some magazine or TV guide archive unknown to me, was found and qualified as a WP:RS. /over.throws/^✎ 23:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. /over.throws/^✎ 23:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm always intrigued when sporadically contributing accounts miss a BEFORE. IMDB notes its existence and agrees with the presenters listed here. While certainly not a RS itself, it suggests that this is real and not fabricated. WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:NTVLOCAL suggests that RS coverage should exist for this somewhere even if we cannot find it. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware the subject had an IMDB, and I left it out because it did not contribute to establishing baseline notability. In addition, I found contemporaneous newspaper sources that only include mention of the program in their TV guides (not sigcov). I don't think that this program, which is distinguished in this case by it being a short-lived, one-off program with minimal coverage available to us, attains notability by dint of being on national television. /over.throws/^✎ 14:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You saw IMDB in your BEFORE and didn't note that in your nomination statement, noting instead "only forums discussing the list" were found? Do you understand why that material misstatement might be a problem? Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And then it rained for seven days

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

Fails WP:NSONG a before turned up nothing, sources in the article include a dead unrelaible source, a live unrelaible source, an interview and user generated site Olliefant (she/her) 17:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Ireland. Olliefant (she/her) 17:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Music for Dead Birds. While seemingly not notable enough for a standalone article, there's information and sources there that should be preserved. Vegantics (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Music for Dead Birds#Discography. As WP:ATD. (Per nom and from my own WP:BEFORE search, have to agree that there's insufficient independent coverage to warrant a standalone title. However, covering the album WP:WITHIN the band article is probably reasonable. With, per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES and WP:SUBNOT, a redirect retained.) Guliolopez (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent album. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Fu Records

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly meets WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels; this is a label that launched a number of major indie rock acts of the 2000s, certainly a label whose cultural impact is enough to merit encyclopedic mention. The talk page lists a few sources. Chubbles (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the sources which highly likely exist must be added prior deletion. I searched per wp before and found some mentions, however not deep coverage. Unicorbia (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18 (One Direction song)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSongs. There is not significant enough coverage of this song to warrant an article.

When searching no other sources appear besides a couple of album reviews mentioning the song, they provides 1 sentence or less; these do no count towards notability.

There is also another source with Ed Sheeran discussing he wrote the songs, which falls under (Self Promo) and not as an independent source. Other then chart entries, that again, do not give a song notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm of Love Tour

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

Unnotable concert. No coverage in sources. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intec Digital

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

Although I'm on the fence, I don't think this organization meets GNG. Of the four sources listed, two are unreliable (i.e., Facebook and Discogs) and one lacks SIGCOV (i.e., DJ Mag). I found an interview in Vice [4] with a paragraph about the company, as well as post at EDM House Network [5], though that could be a press release. Further, this article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2017 with few efforts at improvement. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carl Cox. The nomination doesn't give a particularly good sense that this should have been sent to AfD; the nominator isn't strongly in favor of deletion and doesn't mention WP:MUSIC despite this being a music-related topic (it's only referred to as a company, rather than a record label). Many, many AfDs of record labels are label imprints of notable musical artists, and this one is no exception; I'm not sure that there's sufficient reason for a standalone article here, but mentioning it in connection with Cox's other artistic output makes sense. In general, these should be proposed as merges rather than sent to AfD; there's no reason to have a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatz Awards

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

There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to entities but an award's significance isn't solely determined by the prestige of the awarding entity or the notable recipients. Instead, verifiable evidence from reliable sources is required to substantiate claims of notability. These sources must specifically focus on the award itself, providing in-depth information. Sources primarily highlighting award recipients rather than the award itself don't establish notability. Overall, technically fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Simply clicking on the News tab above brings up articles about the yearly nominees, for several years. This even has been going on for almost a decade and has yearly press coverage in the country, in several RS. Seems to pass notability Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm also finding sigcov. The Punch is solely about the award itself. Music in Africa lists the nominees, but it opens with the structure of the awards platform. Bella Naija makes explicit and evidenced claims of notability. The Guardian Nigeria is about the awards themselves, as is Nigerian Tribune. Anerdw (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The award has press coverage in media --Kopnakolicti (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear to have valid secondary sources to prove WP:GNG. The sources cited are notorious for Brown envelope journalism. Furthermore, Newspapers published in Nigeria explains a bit about the media environment in Nigeria. BellaNaija is a fashion blog, not a credible news source. Punch and Guardian are equally unreliable. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamani1990, BellaNaija is a reliable source, see this recent consensus. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamani1990, The Punch and The Guardian are unreliable according to who? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!}, @Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia: I didn't know that I needed to justify my vote to contributors, this is the first time I've been called out in an AfD. I disagree that BellaNaija is a reliable source. They are a notorious abuser of brown envelope journalism, they will write about anyone claiming notability for a fee. I've been involved in too many AfDs to count to prove this point: [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]]. The Punch and The Guardian also heavily participate in brown envelope journalism which makes me say that they are unreliable, according to me. Even if we were to consider them sometimes reliable, this particular article does not have enough sources to prove notability. Only 2 out of the 6 sources have by lines and they appear to be only superficial, no in-depth coverage of the notability of this award. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 13:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamani1990, I am not calling you out; I asked an innocent simple question, you need to have evidence to backup your claim. BellaNaija discloses paid articles as required, so, you need to point out why you think they’re unreliable. While The Guardian might be involved in shady practices, The Punch has the highest editorial standard amongst the popular mainstream media in Nigeria and I’m talking from experience, you can try to lure them out if you can—sorry if I have digressed. But my point is, if you want to deprecate a source, there should be evidence of wrongdoings from their end and not merely because you feel so. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia, thank you for your clarification. Again, I disagree with you in regards to BellaNaija. They are unreliable. They do not disclose whether they have been paid for articles or not. Here is some evidence from recent AfDs that ended with deletions to back up my claim:

Teju Babyface: [10], [11].

Izin Akioya: [12], [13]

Tobi Asehinde: [14], [15]

m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 10:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamani1990, what are you saying? This clearly states that it was published for free at the end. And I don’t know why you think that those articles were sponsored, I sincerely do not know. Like I said earlier, BellaNaija marks sponsored articles at the end of each post; they always do. This piece published 2 months ago was marked as sponsored at the end of the post. If you read down, you’d see other contents that were sponsored. BBC for example makes errors in reporting and majority of the time, they don’t even use byline yet no one questions their reliability without any evidence. While I don’t have any opinion on this subject, trying to disregard reliable sources with flawed arguments should not be encouraged, please. Keep up your good work and stay safe. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Reading Beans, what I'm saying is that BellaNaija is unreliable. Since when has BellaNaija instituted this policy of marking sponsored articles? Since its founding in 2006? Do you have more evidence to back this up? Trying to make a false equivalence argument to the BBC is headed towards a slippery slope. The BBC has a history of over a century and regularly retracts and posts about their errors here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications/ . Does BellaNaija?

In my opinion, questioning the overall reliability and integrity of Nigerian newspapers and fashion blogs, is not flawed. There is a systemic problem of Brown envelope journalism in Newspapers published in Nigeria. The evidence is cited in those articles. Next (Nigeria) is a great story about the only newspaper in Nigeria that tried to do it differently and failed. But won the Pulitzer.

Thank you for your comments and good work as well. Cheers, m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 12:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamani1990, I don’t have the time to look for their policy. If an outlet has shown a pattern of disclosing sponsored posts, then what other problem do you have? Since when has winning Pulitzer Award been an equivalent to reliable? You are merely insinuating that African newspapers now need validation from Western institutions and I’m offended by this mere comparison, I can’t lie. I believe that some users understands my point and this is where I draw the line in this conversation. Happy editing. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I offended you, it was not my intent. I appreciate this discussion and want to clarify my Pulitzer reference wasn't about Western validation, but about demonstrating verifiable journalistic standards. This is something Wikipedia requires from all sources. Next Nigeria earned credibility by exposing local corruption, not by seeking foreign approval. Regarding BellaNaija, my concerns are specific to their lack of editorial transparency: no visible corrections process, inconsistent sponsorship disclosures, and primarily being a fashion platform covering non-fashion topics. Even the most prominent Western entertainment blog Perez Hilton isn't accepted as a valid/reliable source. Thank you for the thoughtful exchange. Best, m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because it is a nigerian music award show that recognizes the creative minds behind music production, business, and distribution, contributing to the understanding and appreciation of the Nigerian music industry.--Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shine On (Jet song)

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

Non-notable song. 0 coverage in sources. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and United Kingdom. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: For the most part all non-notable songs can be redirected to albums, and non-notable albums can be redirected to band/musician page. This one can be redirected to Shine On (Jet album). LastJabberwocky (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above reason. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added references - clearly satisfies the requirements of WP:NSONG - charted internationally and has featured in numerous television shows. Dan arndt (talk) 08:28, 10 April 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 12:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LEZO (rap group)

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Ukraine. Mitte27 (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find find anything solid searching the word "ЛЕЗО" and their albums writing them down in Ukrainian. Searched google news, proquest, and google books. LastJabberwocky (talk) 08:26, 12 April 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.

Aditi Saigal

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

This is a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Just one film as acting career and one ep for that she received some press coverage. Other than that she is daughter of singer and actor parents but notability is not inherited. Fails wp:NACTOR and Wp:NMUSIC as well. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Film, Music, India, Delhi, and Wales. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:FORBES, Forbes is generally considered a reliable source and can see Forbes covering profile for this person in their article here ^[1] Circular Karma (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1

Not all individuals featured in Forbes necessarily meet the eligibility threshold for a standalone Wikipedia article.

The subject must first satisfy the notability criteria outlined in Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines as a prerequisite for inclusion.

Zuck28 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established per WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG. The sourcing consists of standard PR type promo that one would see for any emerging actor with a press agent, including Forbes, which is not significant coverage, it's simply a photo of her with a caption mentioning her name, thus trivial. The Forbes "profile" link above is more standard PR ~~written by "Forbes Staff", (it does not even have a by-line)~~. I agree with the nom that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in a few more years this emerging actor will become notable, but at this time, one acting role, Spotify "fans" and famous parents is not enough. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a byline and in my view counts as one piece of significant reliable sources coverage. Another reliable bylined piece in the Hindu here, another bylined piece here, leaning Keep for WP:GNG rather than WP:NACTOR imvAtlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One film is not sufficient to pass WP:NACTOR. Need at-least three feature films/web series/TV to comply WP:ACTOR. Forbes 30 Under 30 is paid. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: Two is enough. Guideline says: "multiple" not "several". -Mushy Yank. 14:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coverage has her meet WP:GNG. At worst a redirect to The_Archies_(film)#Cast is totally warranted so opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 14:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTRESS. RangersRus (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beehype

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

I can't find any in-depth coverage of this magazine. Lots of mentions, it exists, but I can't find anything that would indicate it passes WP:GNG. If others can, and it is eventually kept, it does not need the dab in the title. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Websites, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this article is kept, Please move the article to Beehype (redirect to itself). Current title includes unnessesary disambiguation. Thanks and no opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has now been moved (mid-AfD). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Oxford Handbook of Social Media and Music Learning refers to it as a source of info on emerging musicians and bands in Poland [16]. That's a book from a very reputable publisher using it as a source. Apart from that, I'm still searching for Beehype -honey, as it's also the name of at least one brand of honey. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Nightclub

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

Orphan article authored in 2013, with an unaddressed maintenance tag for lack of notability also dating to 2013. Created and overwhelmingly most heavily edited (3/4 of its content) by an author with a conflict of interest. Subject venue closed in 2019[17] and is therefore unlikely ever to receive coverage that would confer notability. Wikipedia is not a compendium of every nightclub that has ever existed. Damon Killian (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added sources rapidly; the place, as one source indicates, has "a storied history" and had various names. It's still existing as Domaine (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/a-new-domaine-takes-over-opera-nightclub-space) but even if it hadn't reopened, an article about this place of historical interest has merit. Thanks.-Mushy Yank. 19:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 19:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 19:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. My !vote to keep is only because it has significant coverage. I actually disdain this sort of influencer celebrity culture club. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more than enough coverage, and for just a nightclub in Atlanta at that! Meets WP:SIGCOV. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osagie Osarenkhoe

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP: ANYBIO. All the sources are either not reliable or not independent. The awards too could not help either because they are just run of the mills Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPRODUCER, this is still up and coming though, so I expect some coverage in the future. But for now, no. The awards are vanity and not do count towards notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The recognition section has notable awards that has been or been nominated for so they meet WP:ANYBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans The awards in the section do not automatically qualify the subject for a Wikipedia article without reliable and independent sources. Of course, I have gone through the sources and most of them are not from reliable news media. The ones from reliable news media are puff pieces like this this, and this or press releases of her parting ways with Wizkid.Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have an opinion on the sourcing. Statements sourced to unreliable sources can always be removed but sadly, that’s not what deletion is for and as the article shows, the recognition section is sourced. Now, back to my argument: the policy I am citing is WP:ANYBIO#1; The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times—emphasises are mine. The recognition section has 2 nominations from The Future Awards Africa and an additional 2 nominations from The Beatz Awards. Now, unless you’re arguing that those awards are not notable, then this subject is clearly notable. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping: Ibjaja055. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: she has been nominated four times more than 3 notable awards,The Future Awards Africa and The Beatz Awards which demonstrates sufficient notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. These nominations are supported by reliable sources, each confirming the subject's recognition in her field. Even though she hasn't won any awards, her repeated nominations show a consistent level of notability in her field. Afro 📢Talk! 14:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She’s notable as an artist manager. And has 4 nominations in two different notable awards four times definitely cuts the criteria in ANYBIOS1. Afro 📢Talk! 14:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per my comments above. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have conflicting opinions here on whether or not this subject's award nominations are supported by reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete: I believe that this person has not achieved notability yet, but as @Vanderwaalforces said, she is up and coming. I believe that once she gains more coverage in reliable and independent sources, an article for her could be re-evaluated. She hasn't reached the notability criteria yet. If we're just factoring in the awards itself that she has received, they are not inherently notable.

WormEater13 (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no policy cited here. The awards section is cited reliable sources and if you are in doubt of the notability of the awards to satisfy NANYBIO#1, then nominate them for deletion. Until, this !vote is not policy based. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sevens

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Popular culture, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 09:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John King (author): or to Peter Mason (journalist), mentioned there. And in time, if secondary sources are added, expand back into a page (Redirect with possibilities). -Mushy Yank. 09:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Two different Redirect target articles suggested here. Any more support for either one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dondero High School A Capella Choir Pop Concert

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

I rejected this at draftspace but it was moved to mainspace and renamed. This fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. The book was written by someone who went to the high school and isn't secondary, and the reporting is local coverage, mostly of the book which was written. It's also not written from a neutral point of view, which is a clean up issue if this is kept. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Michigan. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The book is usable for historical information, and we don't need it to establish notability because the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles are enough to establish notability. The articles are relevant. The Detroit News is one of the most important newspapers in the United States. The Oakland Free Press is the most important newspaper in Oakland County. Articles relevant to Metro Detroit help achieve notability. The area has a greater population than some countries. The Metro Detroit area has millions of people. If you asked 100 people what their subjective opinion on what a neutral point of view is, they would give 100 different answers. As far as I am aware, the statements in the article are backed by reliable sources. I believe that is as objective as you can get. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Wikipedia rules require significant coverage of reliable and independent sources so that a fair and balanced article can be written. All of the articles used in the Pop Concert article are from reliable sources, including the Detroit News article and two separate Oakland Press articles, and those articles have the pop concert as the main subject and not just a passing mention, making the coverage in the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles significant. The Detroit News and Oakland Press articles are also independent sources as they were written by writers who were not affiliated with the pop concert. Wikipedia requires at least one secondary source for an article to qualify, and this article has several secondary sources, including the Detroit News article and the 2 Oakland Press articles. Wikipedia requires multiple sources for an article to qualify (The definition of multiple is more than one). The Detroit News article and the 2 separate Oakland Press articles satisfy the multiple articles Wikipedia guideline. See Wikipedia's notability guidelines posted here in the section "why we have these requirements": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. The Pop Concert article also establishes notability by explaining that the Pop Concert was innovative and groundbreaking for its time in the field of high school choir performance. Also, I had the right to move up the Pop Concert article once it was no longer in the articles of creation space since I am an autoconfirmed user. Orlando Davis (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: "Local sources are considered to be reliable sources if they meet Wikipedia's guidelines for being reliable sources. They are valid in establishing notability if they provide in-depth, non-routine, non-trivial coverage of the subject." See this Wikipedia article: Wikipedia:Notability (local interests)#:~:text=Articles on local interests are,going, non-trivial coverage. As I stated before, the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles provide in-depth coverage, and not just a passing mention of the Dondero Pop Concert. Also, the article Mr Hartoe's Opus was written 9 years before the other articles and compares Mr. Hartsoe's story to the movie Mr. Holland's Opus while discussing the history of the Dondero Pop Concert. The other two articles mention the book but focus primarily on the history of the Dondero Pop concert. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article created by an IP in 2024. Sourcing is not good. Does not seem notable or encyplopedic. Probably a promoter or someone close to the subject. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please cite why you think the sourcing is not good? Seems not notable is not a reason. You should back that with some sort of Wikipedia regulation. See this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy It's not about how you feel about something. A potential conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, and it is already under review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An_interest_is_not_a_conflict_of_interest Orlando Davis (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dondero High School. I don't think this can be said to have notability separate from the institution, given its purely local provenance. BD2412 T 01:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging seems like a plausible outcome, but no consensus has been reached on this. It would be good if those who think the sourcing is good, or the sourcing is bad, would explain their policy-based reasoning for their position.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I dont see how this book is notable. A quick Google search shows 0 results. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a google search of the Dondero High School Pop Concert and got lots of results including the sources that have links on the bottom of the Dondero Pop Concert article.The article is not about the book. It is about the Dondero High School pop concert. As I already stated earlier in the conversation, the notability is based on significant coverage from multiple sources (The definition of multiple is more than one). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Those sources are the Detroit News and two articles from the Oakland Press that have links. We can use the book for historical information, but we don't need the book for the article's notability because notability is established by the Detroit News and Oakland press articles that have links at the bottom of the page. As I stated earlier in the conversation, those sources are reliable and provide in depth coverage of the Dondero Pop Concert. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should not merge the page because it does not qualify to merge based on Wikipedia's merging policy. Wikipedia:Merging#:~:text=Any editor can perform a,and discussed, as detailed below. Please cite a Wikipedia policy page and quote if you think the page should merge if you vote this way. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit News and Oakland Free Press are not small-town newspapers. The Detroit News is one of the two most important newspapers in Detroit, which is one of the biggest cities in the United States, and the Oakland Press is the most important newspaper in one of the biggest counties in the United States. These are the sources that establish notability for the Dondero High School A Capella Choir Pop Concert article. The guidelines are clear about how notability is established, and the article is notable because it includes multiple articles on the subject of the article with significant coverage and not just a passing mention. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dondero High School: Honestly on the fence whether to add roughly 1 sentence into Dondero High School or just delete. This clearly does not satisfy WP:NEVENT. Besides its local geographical scope, the ~~second~~first Oakland Press piece is entirely based on an interview with Pete Wurdock, who is not an independent source, and the Detroit News piece is mostly based on interviews with Wurdock and Hartsoe. They're more about the book launch than the concert itself. The ~~first~~second Oakland Press piece only contains a passing mention of the concert. Not to mention that Wurdock's book is self-published. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the news organization is independent and reliable, it doesn't matter what interviews they use. They are still independent, and we trust their judgment on the content they produce. I'm not sure why you bring up event notability when the Dondero Pop Concert was not a singular event but an annual concert that went on for 39 years. And events are notable if they meet general notability guidelines, which the article does meet because it has significant coverage, not just a passing mention from multiple sources.

It's absolutely false that the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles are more about the book launch than the concert itself. You obviously didn't read either. Also, you make the Oakland Press sound like it's the newspaper of a city with 5 thousand people. It is the top newspaper of one of the most highly populated counties in the United States.

Summary of Detroit News to explain how it talks in depth about the Dondero High School Pop Concert:

The article discusses how Mr. Hartsoe cultivated a passion for rock for his students, also when and who performed the Dondero High School Pop Concert, and how the concert was sold out each year. Wurdock (A ex student of Mr Hartose) is quoted explaining how playing in the concert made the students feel. The Detroit News article talks about how Hartsoe broke through to anti-establishment teens by allowing them to perform in the Dondero Pop Concert. The article also talks about how performing rock music is complex and that the goal for Mr. Hartsoe was to get the kids to replicate the sounds as closely as possible for the Dondero Pop Concert. Additionally, it discusses how Hartsoe departed from the Soprano-Alto-Treble-Bass to instead do as many as 14 different levels for the Dondero High School Pop Concert. And also how Dan Palmer, who was a student in Hartsoe's A Cappella choir in the early 70s, continued to work for the concert after he graduated, writing the charts for the songs. It also explains how the students got into the Dondero Pop Concert by passing the 10-page test and getting into A Cappella choir. And the Detroit News article talks at the end about the final pop concert that was partly a reunion of prior soloists performing one last time. All of that information in the article is about the concert and comprises most of the article. So the Detroit News article definitely is about the Dondero High School Pop Concert. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/life/columnists/marney-rich-keenan/2015/03/24/book-celebrates-history-dondero-high-school-pop-concerts/70407132/

Summary of Oakland Press to explain how it talks in depth about the Dondero High School Pop Concert:

The first Oakland Press article has a lot of information about the concert; it explains that kids from other schools tried to copy the concert but failed. The article discusses the different components that it took to make the concert happen, including getting the instrumentalists, vocalists, and the sound techs to know their parts, and how Hartose wanted the band to sound just like the albums of the bands covered by the A Cappela choir and instrumentalists. It goes over the history of the concert, how in 67 Hartsoe got a job at Dondero High School and first added pop songs to the songs performed by the Dondero A Cappella choir, and how that didn't go well with all the students at first. The article also discusses the very first songs chosen, Jose Feliciano's "Guantanamera" and The Bob Crewe Generation's "Music to Watch Girls By". The article also explains how Jay Palmer and his brother Dan joined the band and the reaction to the first electric guitar being brought on stage to an audience that was accustomed to traditional music. It also explains how Dan Palmer began making the arrangements for Pop Concert. And the article also talks about how the concert evolved to more than just basic rock and roll by covering the progressive rock bands Yes, Boston, the Alan Parsons Project, and Queen. Also, Pete Wurdock explains that Hartsoe was innovative in his teaching methods and a great coach, which explains Hartsoe's role in making the Pop Concert happen. The information I discussed is most of the article's content; what do you mean by a passing mention? You obviously did not read the article and are trying to pretend you did for some reason that I don't understand. https://www.theoaklandpress.com/2015/03/02/local-author-releases-book-about-dondero-pop-concerts/

It doesn't matter that Wurdock's book is self-published because the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles establish notability. But we can use the book for historical information. Orlando Davis (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I switched the first and second Oakland Press pieces, my bad. WP:NEVENT does apply to recurring events. My point about the Oakland Press piece is that it's not doing any independent reporting about the concert, just directly and indirectly quoting Wurdock's own thoughts. E.g. Pete Wurdock explains that Hartsoe was innovative in his teaching methods and a great coach, but this is Wurdock's opinion about the concerts, not the opinion of any independent source. The Detroit News piece is similar. Also, please don't add long responses to every comment that largely reiterate the same points you already made—this can be interpreted as WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. I have already read through your comments and the sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not bludgeoning, there have been highly incorrect assertions, so I have responded to each one with facts. Those facts took me a lot of space.

Here is a quote from the WIki Don't Bludgeon page: "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. Everyone should have the chance to express their views within reasonable limits. Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building." Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process

There was no other way for me to explain that you were stating false information. You switching the articles doesn't change the fact that you said the articles were about the book launch and that's false. They are about the Dondero Pop Concert. I responded by summarizing the articles to show that's not true.Yes, that's lengthy, but it was the only way I knew to show that what you said is false.

Your interpretation of how the Oakland press and Detroit News report is not a fact or guideline. Using an interview does not take away the fact that is an independent source. The Oakland Press and Detroit News articles are independent sources per wikipedia guidelines. Orlando Davis (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful Raccoon says that he accidentally switched the 2 Oakland Press articles. The second Oakland Press explains how Hartsoe came to Dondero High School as a 25-year-old and began integrating popular music into the choir curriculum. This is relevant to understanding the beginnings of the Dondero High School Pop Concert. The article explains that at that time, incorporating popular music was a radical idea, which is relevant because that is one of the reasons the concert is notable, that it was innovative and groundbreaking for its time.

It also explains his music teaching philosophy that students could learn as much from rock music as from classical music. And that rock music can be harder than classical music. This is a discussion of why Hartsoe believed the annual Dondero Pop Concert was worthwhile. The article also explains how students performed Chicago, Yes, and Boston, which was performed at the Dondero High School Pop concert during its 39 years. That is an explanation of how teaching popular music through the Dondero Pop Concert was a critical part of Hartsoe’s legacy. Anyway, the other Oakland Press article and the Detroit News article are already enough to establish notability since that is multiple coverage.

https://www.theoaklandpress.com/2006/03/17/mr-hartsoes-opus/ Orlando Davis (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:PROMO and WP:OR along with a lack of independent sources. Much of the article is lacking sources and a search on Dondero High School essentially turns up zero. Some of the statements in the article cannot be verified in the sources provided. A major source, the Pete Wurdock book, is listed in the Oakland news as being self-published. I cannot even confirm the existence of the book and therefore not only cannot see the contents, I cannot find any information about it (length, photos, etc.). The other sources are short, local news articles but that do not support the details in the WP article. As for promo, there are unverifiable statements like "It stands as one of the pioneering instances in which rock music was sung and performed by high school choir students". "The Dondero Pop Concert evolved during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, inspiring numerous notable performances." " it is possibly the first instance where progressive rock was performed with a high school choir and instrumentalists". The choir is not mentioned article for Dondero High School, so I suppose a few sentences can be added there. The sources on that article do not mention this choir. Lamona (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 1) I removed wording that could be interpreted as non-neutral and added citations in areas where it was requested. 2) Multiple people are saying that nothing appears when searching the Dondero High School Pop Concert on Google. Here is a limited screen shot of half a page: Screen Shot of Dondero High School Pop Concert Google Search Additionally, here is a screen shot of the ebay listing of the Dondero Pop Concert book: Screen Shot of the Dondero Pop Concert book Love Will Steer the Stars 3) Sources do not have to be online sources. As long as the source exists, you can use it on Wikipedia. If an editor doesn't want to buy a book, that doesn't mean it can't be used. I apologize for being repetitive, but Wikipedia allows self-published books to be used for historical information. Also, I believe the guideline restricting the use of self-published sources should be looked at carefully because many authors who have worked with publishing companies have limited financial success, while a self-published author might be very successful. Often, an author will go the self-published route, not because he can't find a publishing company that will publish his book, but because he doesn't want to settle for a very small percentage of the book's royalties. Being self-published can be a much better financial decision. In this case, the book was significant enough to have been talked about in multiple reliable sources, which is much more than most books that worked with publishing companies. The guideline page on identifying and using self-published works does allow for some exceptions in using self-published works to establish notability.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources Orlando Davis (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your repetitiveness and WP:BLUDGEONING is really making this AfD process more difficult, and your lecturing on WP policy is, to be honest, quite annoying. What you have provided are links to recordings, which are NOT sources ABOUT the topic of the article. Even assuming good faith on the statements attributed to the book, that is ONE source and it does not meet the definition of independent. Now you need to assume good faith and accept that others can have different interpretations and you must not try to bludgeon them into changing their minds. You have made your case; now let this process follow its normal course. Lamona (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am really sorry if you're frustrated. However, it's not bludgeoning if I'm commenting to let the forum know that I have made heavy changes to the article. Also, the links I added aren't sources, they are just there in case people want to listen to the recordings. I did not add them as sources. Many articles have links that aren't sources but are there for extra information, for example a link to a website. I did add reliable sources in the places you said were lacking. Also, "Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building." Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process". I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. It's not a vote. The administrator will decide based on who they think made the best argument based on policy. By the way, all the articles with links are independent and secondary articles. Also, I'm wary of disruptive editors who have learned the rules well enough to get away with being disruptive. I know that's not you. You obviously read the article and made valid points that I worked hard to modify. And I needed to let the forum know that it is a very different article now. I'll back away from this page for a few days. Thank you for your patience. Orlando Davis (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asle og Alida

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

Article about an upcoming new opera, not reliably sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, operas are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about them -- but this is "referenced" solely to the self-published website of the opera company that's producing it, with no media coverage or analysis about it shown at all.
No prejudice against recreation later in the year if and when it does have adequate GNG-worthy coverage to satisfy inclusion standards, but a single primary source is not sufficient for it to already have an article now. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Norway. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I found this news article and also this. Both are in Norwegian, for which I can only read a few cognates. Ping me if more information comes up. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a Nobel prize-winning librettist and notable composer, I don't think we need a crystal ball to know that there will be SIGCOV of this opera, whether it's a success or a flop. Its premiere is 5 days away - why delete it when it can be expanded and have more sources added in less than a week? The NRK source found by Bearian could be added now; the other source is paywalled for me. (No, I can't read Norwegian - I just put it in Google Translate, which is good enough to provide the info that it was commissioned by Eivind Gullberg Jensen, the current director of the Bergen Opera, and Frank Kjosås will take the title role, despite never having sung in an opera before ...) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This opera premiered at the second largest opera house in Norway, the libretto written by a noble prize laureate and a Grawemeyer award composer… 158.248.40.59 (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Things get Wikipedia articles if and when they have WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them in media, and are not automatically entitled to be included in Wikipedia just because they exist. So it's not a question of the fact that it premiered, it's a question of showing WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about it in media. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Kjosås does not have the title role, he plays Asleik (not Asle) which is mainly a speaking role, with few line of singing.--158.248.40.59 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I likely wouldn't have created it prior to the premiere...but it has been created. And since it's been premiered I expect to see some reviews in the next couple of months (I'll try to remember to look for one in next month's issue of Opera magazine, or the following one.) We can revisit in a few months if the reviews are not forthcoming, but I expect them to be. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though article created in late march 2025, I think we should give it some time before nominating for delete. Barely premiered. After a while it is not notable, then perhaps nominate for delete. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there are 5 sources, but only 3 seem to be more reliable or notable. All are Norwegian, but that isn't a problem for GNG here. Good enough to Keep this one here. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are more reviews in Klassekampen [18], Dagsavisen [19], Dag og Tid [20]. Most have a paywall (I have read them though), but I don't think it is the point to sum up every single opinion about the opera. Here is an English one [21], but that was sponsored by BNO, and a long background interview with Sørensen [22] (not a very big magazine though).--158.248.40.59 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music Proposed deletions

No articles proposed for deletion at this time

[1] ttps://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1

[1]