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

Jugovizija

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

I have been researching past Yugoslav national finals using newspaper archives with the aim of improving the currently existing articles which are reliant on fansites for information, a clear breach of WP:RS.

So far I have researched the national finals of 1961-1976 using the Digital Library of Slovenia and my progress so far can be seen on my Sandbox. I plan on doing the remaining 1981-1992 national finals, as well as using newspaper archives from other former Yugoslav countries. However, I can already make a case for the deletion of this article.

In the Digital Library of Slovenia, only 1987, 1990, and 1991 have been referred to as Jugovizija and the national final has only been referred to that in TV guides in 1990.^[1]^[2]^[3] However, this article has added the name Jugovizija post hoc to every national final before then; and even to Yugoslavia's only internal selection in 1963 which went unnamed.^[4] Most Yugoslav national finals had a different name from year to year, with the only consistency being 1973-1976 where they used the Opatija Festival [hr], a previously unrelated competition, as their national selection.^[5] Pasting the Jugovizija name over this is inaccurate, and would be like putting the name Italovision on editions of the Sanremo Music Festival which were used as national finals. The name Jugovizija implies that these shows were part of a series of shows, when in reality they are a disconnected set of shows only united by a similar premise, that being to select the Yugoslav entry for the Eurovision Song Contest. Using Ireland as an example, they are as different to each other as the National Song Contest 1970, Eurosong 1996, and a 2025 episode of the Late Late Show are.

In addition to the problems surrounding the name, the article is full of factual inaccuracies, owing to the fact it only cites three sources, two of which being the same fansite. As already mentioned, it lists Yugoslavia's 1963 internal selection as a national final. Says that the contest was originally called Jugovizija in 1961, when it was actually called Pesem Evrovizije and Evrovizija 1961 in TV guides.^[6]^[7] And claims that the format of the 1971 national final had the subnational broadcasters submit entries, when it was actually an exception in this way.^[8]

All of these reasons listed above lead me to think that Jugovizija is a name that JRT used only a few times in the late 80s and 90s which fans have adopted to refer to the national finals. It is a fun name for a national final, but I think this article is misrepresentative of Yugoslav national finals and this information would be better represented with more detailed per-year articles on Yugoslav national finals, which I am working on. However, in these articles, I would not be opposed to adding a line after stating the actual name of the national final that says something along the lines of: "The national final, along with every other Yugoslav national final, has also been called Jugovizija post hoc by fans of the Eurovision Song Contest", as long as I can find a suitable source for this statement.Spleennn (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Yugoslavia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hálfdán Helgi Matthíasson

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

Article can be merged with existing Væb page, consisting of the two brothers. Content replicates that of the Eurovision section of the Væb page and article principally mentions Væb and not Hálfdán on its own. Proposing a speedy redirect back to Væb. Edl-irishboy (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, and Iceland. Edl-irishboy (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Væb for now as an Alternative to deletion. I don't think he is well enough established outside of last Eurovision to have his own article just yet. Alvaldi (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Is A OK: A Dallas, TX Punk Documentary

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

Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 10:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, United States of America, and Texas. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything out there other than what's already in the article. I did add some content and an interview in hopes of finding more, but again, nothing. If we had a good redirect target I suppose it could redirect there, but List of documentary films specifies that they must be notable films and I've never had any sort of answer on whether or not we could add and redirect films to the given film's year specific page for List of American films. So with no other alternatives that I can see, as the director doesn't appear to pass NCREATIVE and we have no page on the punk rock scene in Dallas, this will have to be a delete on my end. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niko de Weymann

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

Non-notable supposed polymath. Claimed notability in numerous fields but fails to meet relevant guidelines an any: fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NSPORTSPERSON, WP:NCREATIVE, WP:MUSICBIO. Cabrils (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Music, History, Engineering, Martial arts, Sport of athletics, Delaware, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16 Entertainment

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

Its founder Alex Wilhelm is notable, but this company of his has no significant coverage in WP:RS. Hmr (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Hmr (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanos Kalliris

AfDs for this article:

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

This article written about a Greek musician does not cite any reliable source that can be cross verified. Also if an editor chooses to find reliable sources or choose to add oneself, as per WP:RS, they may not find direct, reliable and primary sources for this person on the internet, but only mentions. According to WP guidelines, which strictly demands reliable sources, it should be either deleted, redirected or reduced to stub. Please leave your opinion. As: Be civil, Do not distract the discussion and your opinion should be grounded with reality. Wh67890 (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wh67890 (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bang (Greek band) first choice, delete is second choice. Can't find any SIGCOV. And it also looks like the Greek article, Θάνος Καλλίρης, is in the same condition of being unsourced. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trap Lore Ross

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

Obviously AI generated article not in encyclopedic tone. It reads very promotional and puffery. Subject might be notable, but this is not an acceptable article. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the main editors contributions, I see several good articles and even a featured article. Yet, this really reads to me like an obvious example of AI generated text which confuses me. I don't want to accuse a productive and experienced editor of using AI, so I really apologize if that's not the case. Sources are pretty poor and some seem entirely unrelated to the text it describes, like the opinion piece from Defector describing him highly negatively used as a reference on the sentence "His content often delves into the real-life events and legal troubles of musicians, presenting a blend of music journalism and cultural commentary." RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not even sure how to address this tbh, but no, it is not AI written. I use grammarly often to sort out better sentences structure. In your defence, someone once told that only AI uses the word "delve". Feel free to check the factuality for each sentence using the inline sources, so you can be sure that: The article does not include hallucinated information or fictitious references. As for copyright violation, use Earwig.

Anyway, AfD are normally based on policies, so you need to indicate in your nom the policy that you think this article is violating. Have a read through Wikipedia:Deletion policy and if you change your mind, you can withdraw the nom.

Also please when you tag an article, it is better to add more details in the page talk so editors know what to fix. Good luck FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the above, and while I will believe you on not writing the entire article with AI, it has the exact same non-encyclopedic tone of AI. If I would ask a LLM to write an article, I would get an indistinguishable result in prose. I do believe the article contains citations that do not match the actual sentences. Another example is the sentence "He also delves into the evolution of hip-hop culture, and the intricate relationships between rap music and broader societal issues" is completely unrelated to the two citations, one which seems to just be a page with an embedded video? If he has covered the evolution of hip-hop culture, the source does not explain it.

I did not explicitly link anything but my reason for nomination is WP:ATD-E "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion". I am not arguing against the notability about this person, only that the quality of the article is so poor that it's not worth keeping in this state, especially considering it's a biography of a living person. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw when you say “ Another example is the sentence” you know you are talking about the same example?

I replied below to your accusation of fictitious citation. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by, but Grammarly uses AI now so that is likely why it might appear AI-generated. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources at the end of that sentence says:

“ Up next for TLR ... deep dives into NBA YoungBoy and Quando Rondo. Who knows, there may be one of Boosie too!!!”
“ You don't need to watch more than a few minutes of any of Trap Lore Ross's work to understand the register at which he's operating. “ the article continues to describe what he does

so I am not sure how you are not able to verify the sentence. It doesn’t need to be verbatim or paraphrased from the article. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up two different sentences that do not have truthful citations. I will go through them in detail, since you seem to be confused.

"He also delves into the evolution of hip-hop culture, and the intricate relationships between rap music and broader societal issues."

No source mentions him covering "the evolution of hip-hop culture". It is entirely possible that he has done this, but it's not sourced.

"His content often delves into the real-life events and legal troubles of musicians, presenting a blend of music journalism and cultural commentary."

Indeed, the Defector source has the text "You don't need to watch more than a few minutes of any of Trap Lore Ross's work to understand the register at which he's operating.", but it's preceded and followed by a extremely negative opinion on this person. The source argues that people like him are "provocateurs" and their work is a form of cultural "exploitation". The author is basically arguing that he what he does is more akin to "exploitation" than "cultural commentary". RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see GNG, source 2 is a RS, it mentions the person... 5 and 7 are the only other RS, that briefly mention this person, mostly re-quoting TMZ or talking about a documentary this person made. I can't find any sources either, these are all TMZ or other gossip sites. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you looked to the sources in the article and found one is RS and dismissed TMZ? Why? Looking to WP:PRS, it doesn’t not dismiss TMZ + notability is not decided by the sources in the article as the article was not updated since 2024. If you look now all these are sources about the person:

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TMZ is not a reliable source, low quality at best. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:TMZ&redirect=no. I would prefer a better site. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In the comments the nominator is not contesting the topic notability but first started by saying the text is AI like, then moved to saying that the prose quality is so bad that the page need to be deleted. Changing the goal post makes this nom really hard to address but going by typical AfD noms:

notability is met in the article and more sources can be found outside the article
accusations of using AI to write the article is not a cause to delete an article (you can take to me to ANI or the village for discussion), and
the prose is excellent, every line is sourced, grammatically sound and the text can be understood.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the text is AI like, then moved to saying that the prose quality is so bad that the page need to be deleted"

These mean the same thing. AI-like text is just a specific form of poor prose. I am not moving any goalposts. WP:TNT mentions that articles that could meet notability requirements are routinely deleted for being poor quality such that an entire rewrite from a red link would be preferable to having a blue link.

The prose is not "excellent" (as it reads like AI prose), a text being understandable does not mean that it's encyclopedic in tone. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

which part is not encloypedic, your argument is about style, not susbtance, which not a cause for deletion

Which part of WP:TNT are you alluding to?

To be honest, if you look to the comments no one is paying attention to your nom. Which is good becuase your nom does not have legs. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per lack of reliable sources and what Oaktree b wrote. TMZ is one of those unreliable sources that turn out to be reliable sometimes: it's produced by a guy whose tag line is "I'm a lawyer." AI has its uses. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't see any redeeming qualities about this article. This seems like a glorified fan writeup, and it isn't even written by a human's hands. I concur with the comments by Oaktree. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Music, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG. The best source here is TMZ, which WP:PRS describes as low-quality. None of the other sources can be used to establish notability.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Costas

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Bibliographies, News media, Music, Business, Management, and Australia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am the author of this Wikipedia page. I note @S-Aura that you have nominated this page for deletion. I am curious to know why?

I would say that the article on Damien Costas clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria under both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There is significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth, not just in passing.

Examples include:

• The Sydney Morning Herald’s detailed report on Costas’s bankruptcy annulment and business dealings (https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/porn-king-says-supporters-prepared-to-forgive-his-millions-in-bad-debt-20210728-p58dmf.html).

• Crikey’s reporting on his editorial transformation of Australian Penthouse (https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/11/07/penthouse-australia-alt-right/).

• The Guardian and ABC News coverage of public events he organized (Milo Yiannopoulos and Nigel Farage tours).

• International Business Times on his media influence (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/damien-costas-reshaping-thought-behind-media-influence-responsibility-moulding-public-opinion-1727160).

These sources span business, politics, and culture — showing that the subject of Damien Costas has been covered across domains over a number of years. I believe that the article is neutrally written and properly cited. I would argue that there is no policy-based reason to delete this page. CharlotteMilic (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey's report mentions Costas once. This is a long way from WP:SIGCOV of him.
The Guardian and ABC reports don't mention him at all.
The International Business Times report is an interview. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and don't count towards establishing notablity.

TarnishedPath^talk 06:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the follow-up. To clarify, with specific reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:

Regarding significant coverage and source quality:

The Sydney Morning Herald article ("Debt deal and sex appeal") is an independent, reliable source that provides significant coverage of Costas's business activities and financial history. Per WP:GNG, "significant coverage" means coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This article clearly meets the threshold of WP:SIGCOV as it discusses the subject substantively rather than in passing. As established in Wikipedia policy, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and "does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Crikey's article mentions Costas several times throughout. Further, it is not used alone to establish notability. It complements other sources that do provide in-depth coverage. Under WP:GNG, multiple sources providing coverage can collectively demonstrate notability, as the guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Regarding supporting sources and their appropriate use:

ABC News and The Guardian are used to verify key aspects of Costas's professional activities — specifically his role in organizing major speaking tours. These are supporting citations, not primary evidence of notability. Per WP:BIO (WP:Notability (people)), biographical articles may include material from multiple reliable sources to establish the full scope of a person's notable activities.

Regarding primary sources and interviews:

Regarding the International Business Times, while interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources, this does not make them unusable. Per WP:NOR, "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care." They can be cited to support attributed statements or commentary about the subject's views — which is precisely how it's used in the article. As stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author."

Additional supporting coverage:

Additionally, a recent article in Men's Health Australia (October 2024) offers a profile on Costas's media leadership and innovation strategies, providing another layer of significant coverage from a reputable publication (https://menshealth.com.au/damien-costas-on-fostering-creativity-and-innovation-in-the-media-industry)

Meeting notability requirements:

Taken together — Sydney Morning Herald, Men's Health, SmartCompany, and IBTimes (for attributed quotes) — the subject clearly receives sustained, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, satisfying WP:GNG. The General Notability Guideline requires that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."

The coverage spans business, media, and cultural domains over multiple years, demonstrating the sustained attention that indicates lasting notability rather than temporary news coverage. As stated in WP:N, "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability" and "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability" - meaning topics are notable when "the outside world has already 'taken notice of it.'"

I'm happy to improve the article if needed, but the topic plainly meets notability standards under both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. CharlotteMilic (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaylor (theory)

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

The subject and content of the article is infringing on BLP policies, with citations of more inferior sources than reliable sources. The article is mostly, if not entirely WP:FANCRUFT. This topic is already covered appropriately in the Swifties article in its own section, without superfluous stories and fancruft-y details. ℛonherry☘ 13:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Journalism, News media, Music, and Popular culture. ℛonherry☘ 13:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a WP:BEFORE search finds several academic sources on the theory; see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to name just a few. The subject is clearly notable. Even if majority of the page is currently fancruft, it most certainly can be written neutrally. jolielover♥talk 05:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per jolielover, and an article being poorly written is not enough of a reason to delete. It would be very helpful if you could mark the problematic content on either the article or the talk page, though. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per jolielover 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An earlier article on this so-called "theory" was overwhelmingly deleted in 2023 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaylors. That one was about the group of people who believe the theory, and now that theory seems to have gotten some analysis from bored professors that can apparently support this newer article. That's it for me because you can expect this discussion to collapse into sniping between believers and nonbelievers. Good luck everyone. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you can accuse any academic article of being created by "bored professors"; all analysis is ultimately done by people interested by such topics who dedicate years to their niche. I don't see how that's relevant. The theory is important in understanding human psychology, celebrity fandom and parasocial relationships. I agree that the article needs some cropping and more focus on the psychology behind such beliefs, and any real world consequences it may have caused, but as it goes, it is culturally significant and notable. jolielover♥talk 14:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough citation to prove the notabilty, clearly paasing WP:BURDEN, WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV SATavr (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per jolielover. Tekrmn (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hellen Lukoma

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. References are gossip column style interviews and announcements. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN with two non notable bands. More generally a WP:GNG / WP:BIO failure. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Music, Television, Fashion, and Uganda. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sourcing to meet WP:NACTOR criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chokeslem

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

Terribly-sourced AI-generated article with no evidence of meeting WP:NSONG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ReggaeEDM

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

This AI-generated article (note the telltale Example text at the end of the URLs) is an exercise in WP:OR. There is a single artist out there, Kevens, who describes his own influences as including both reggae and EDM ([1], [2]). As a result of his self-description, a handful of sources describe Kevens as a reggaeEDM or reggae/EDM artists, but these are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and do not provide WP:SIGCOV of this genre ([3] [4] [5] [6]) None of the other artists listed in the article are described in reliable sources as working in this supposed subgenre. There are no reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide WP:SIGCOV of this topic as a subgenre and thus fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. The remaining sources describe music as drawing from both genres without describing it as a new genre ([7] [8]), or they talk only about reggae ([9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]) or only about EDM ([20], [21]), or mention both but don't draw any connection ([22] [23]). Other sources are unusable because they are self-published blogs ([24] [25]), non-independent ([26], or are social media posts ([27]). All of this results in a strange fusion of WP:PROMO and WP:SYNTH to fabricate a single artist's self-description into a new subgenre. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since at least 2097, the consensus has been to avoid adding articles on new genres of music too soon. This is also terribly sourced, which is another hallmark of AI-created pages. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has been up for over six months and has been carefully revised and improved throughout that time. The text has been rewritten manually to meet Wikipedia's expectations.

The sources cited were not fabricated or auto-generated. Each one was added by hand using direct links to the actual web pages. The article references independent, high-quality sources that explicitly mention ReggaeEDM and Kēvens as the recognized founder of the new genre. They include People Magazine, The Source, and the Jamaica Observer.

ReggaeEDM is actively becoming recognized on major platforms including Spotify, Chartmetric, and on YouTube with multiple curated playlists under the ReggaeEDM genre.

This is not an original research or a vanity page, it reflects a legitimate genre that is growing traction in the music industry and was recently featured at a TED conference. Like reggaeton and dubstep before it, ReggaeEDM is at an early stage of formal recognition. This wikipedia entry is being maintained in good faith, and improvements are ongoing. Deletion would be premature and unnecessary.

I request the opportunity to continue to edit the page to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. LukeArcher (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:SIGCOV of this supposed genre as a genre. The only mentions are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that casually mention Kevens' self-description as a "reggaeEDM" artist. Having playlists on Spotify is not significant coverage either. If indeed reggaeEDM is at an early stage of formal recognition, it will get more coverage and this page can be recreated in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elvish Yadav

AfDs for this article:

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

His win in a reality show (Bigg Boss OTT 2) and some online controversies have received temporary media attention, but these do not amount to the kind of sustained, independent coverage needed to demonstrate long-term wiki article. The article also leans promotional in tone, with excessive detail on YouTube milestones and trivial career facts, which goes against WP:NOT and WP:BLP. Being internet famous is not inherently equivalent to being notable by Wiki. BharatGanguly (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Music, India, and Haryana. BharatGanguly (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the nominatior that his career is smaller than the controversy section. And doesn’t pass notability. But the given sources suggest he received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources which compound to Wp:GNG. I believe the sources should be checked carefully and evaluated if they really are reliable sources or just puff pieces and. wp:CHURNALISM and Wp:QUESTIONABLE. Zuck28 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Upon observing this article, I'm not confident about the article blog-style reporting & entertainment coverage lacking editorial oversight. Well, per WP:NYOUTUBER, mere social media popularity and viral fame is insufficient. Notability come from lasting, third-party recognition in RS which is absent here. This is a clear case of WP:NOTPROMO. Chronos.Zx (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and comment above. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 10:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is (unfortunately) a close call because he has received a fair amount of media coverage but for all the wrong reasons. As said by folks above, more significant coverage of his "career" is needed per WP:NYOUTUBER, while the reports he received for various acts of shameless self-promotional desperation are numerous but largely WP:CHURNALISM. Gotta admit that he knows how to get fleeting mentions of his name in the tabloids though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article about his youtube channels and winning an Indian version of Big Brother. Editors probably sympathetic to him have repeatedly tried to remove the controversy section so I suspect the deletion of this article would aid that censorship attempt, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:GNG. The amount of coverage is too huge to justify even the AfD, let alone deleting the article. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Many reliable sources have provided him significant coverage. International sources like The Independent have also covered him.[28] I am totally surprised over this AfD. Agletarang (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was surprised by how much media attention he has received. This goes well beyond a one-event bio. Not a BLP1E, and looks notable to me.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Park City Film Music Festival

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

Non notable festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (as noted in prod "article was created by an account whose sole purpose was to create articles to promote a film-maker who won an award at this festival." duffbeerforme (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen (singer)

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

Fails WP:BANDMEMBER, no indication of notability outside of being in her group. orangesclub 🍊 00:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, and Philippines. orangesclub 🍊 00:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per my argument to Maloi ROY is WAR Talk! 22:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bini (group): Per my arguments at the Maloi AFD discussion. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Gwen (singer)" is an appropriate redirect. There may have been several more notable singers named Gwen that are for more notable. Either this is kept (either as a standalone article or as a redirect assuming info on this article is not there at the main Bini article) or deleted, no redirects. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Gannet

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources lack independent depth, and the article reads like WP:PROMO. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See this deletion log also. & the provided sources [ SonicScoop, SongChecks, Mixonline] are primarily interviews/industry publications that not provide independent coverage per WP:GNG. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SonicScoop and MixOnline are fully independent publications. Would alternate or additional sources help correct the issue? The article is not intended as promo and appears to read similarly to other Wikipedia pages regarding other notable recording/mixing engineers. 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed what I am guessing may have been the offending sections. Please advise if any additional changes are necessary 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

additional sources included and tonal revisions made 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly some WP:COI editing going on with @Konakaimusic and 148.74.79.119. The Music Connection and Songchecks sources don't name any authors, and do little more than reprint his press releases. I don't see any actual in-depth journalism there. Rift (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
148.74.79.119 and Konakaimusic are both me… edits were made from 2 different devices and one wasn’t signed in to Wikipedia. Is that not permitted? Additionally, subject is interviewed about his work in several podcasts, however they are predominantly audio/video. Are those site-able references? Konakaimusic (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:LOUTSOCK, WP:DBLOCK. If you are disrupting Wikipedia, adding support to your arguments by using multiple accounts/IPs in any discussion and not being open about it, it is not allowed per above and others.

It is an advice to avoid using IP when you have an ID. IPs are also tracked/trackable but your ID grants you certain rights and covers for that. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. This was in no way done with any disruptive, devious or malicious intent, just a function of working on multiple devices and being a novice on wikipedia. I appreciate the information and will not make that mistake in the future. Konakaimusic (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not checked that on the page itself. You have cleared the doubts and told about two - IP and ID. Furthermore, avoid using them both again in any discussion, it will look like asserting your opinion by two spaces and may or may not give wrong idea to others. Just as a precautionary measure, don't use IP here. < s> you can use these to strike out IP comments without any space after < or /. </ s > I gave spaces just to show it to you. It will look like this ~~AtrofeliciousGrazzostauras~~.

I am assuming good faith, I believe you. Also, WP:TEAHOUSE is the way to go for when you have a question or doubts! Happy editing! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding more in depth journalistic resources, are podcasts/tv shows/music videos citable sources? The subject has been interviewed on several podcasts, appeared in many music videos with notable artists and has been referenced/appeared on multiple television programs relative to his career and artists he has worked with. I'd like to add additional resources but would like to avoid making any additional mistakes or adding any unacceptable citations. Konakaimusic (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Share sources here. Other editors will evaluate them. Just go through WP:NMUSICIAN and read the points there to understand the best about sources needed.

Official verified YouTube channels of known RS news magazines or papers or media houses will also work to verify some particular statements and facts for example, their personal life or career or views. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy that. Thank you for your help. Will add references here for review. Konakaimusic (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below are some additional potential categorized references. I am still looking online to find additional interviews that I've come across or heard on the radio in the past, but this is what I've found so far. I will add more here if I find them. Please advise if any of these are acceptable citable sources.

These are some podcasts/interviews I've found featuring Josh Gannet:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wu-tang-the-saga-continues-feat-josh-gannet/id1137475083?i=1000395162185

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/josh-gannet-wu-tang-clan-redman-slash-and-more/id1469540234?i=1000568278893

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miYZYqeXUcA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAStxAWMEZk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=JoYjCKACCRBO88rL&v=YRLxb87jpRU&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c917cArYc-E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59FmVN1DYLg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nENrjTALFcg

Notable music videos in which Josh Gannet makes appearances:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_D-RVFLxdA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK5Nq1UtsyI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv648QiNA_M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=encnQZ66X5I

Interviews/TV spots with Redman which reference or have cameos from Josh Gannet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nyobyZ6gdE 15:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-h9fWMbDcQ 7:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bqg_iRYnqk 45:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92FNYLiSzFo 1:40:59

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHUctcR5VtA 58:57

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Aovsl1TP8 12:07

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Fa881KsZX/?mibextid=wwXIfr 2:44 (This was from an episode of MTV Cribs which I see articles on, but this is the only active video of it I see online) Konakaimusic (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Hour (Zero Hour album)

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

No sources that I could find to confirm the article meeting WP:NALBUM. Most coverage of albums called "Zero Hour" is in reference to other albums with the same title. -Samoht27 (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. -Samoht27 (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zero Hour (band) as an alternative to deletion. ✗plicit 06:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For engagement to have a consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zero Hour (band) per Explicit. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zero Hour (band) per above as an alternative to deletion.Timur9008 (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zero Hour (band): Non-notable on it's own — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Halocene

AfDs for this article:

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

While this isn't a G4, the substance of the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halocene do not appear to have been addressed by this new draft and merger. Since the decision is two years old, a new consensus may be helpful. Bringing it here for discussion. Star Mississippi 01:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Television, United States of America, and Arizona. Star Mississippi 01:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Saw this earlier but was going to let the dust settle a day prior to bringing to AfD. Page created despite draft being declined multiple times. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to The Masked Singer (Australian TV series)#Controversy (effectively endorsing the closure of the first AfD). Now that I've the energy to sit and do WP:BEFORE search, I've found mostly press releases or routine announcements, some of which are cited in the article itself. Many of the in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources are about the plagiarism accusations. I had done the merge because a patroller (?) found Halocene (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and requested a pageswap with the base page name. I thought it better to keep the extensive page history at plain old Halocene, especially since (band) only has my merge, the patroller's addition of a short description and hatnote, and the recreator's writing. (For transparency, nominator notified me about this AfD on my user talk.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with aggregating the history together in the event Halocene becomes notable and have no issue with any of your actions here @Rotideypoc41352. I also notified the creator of the new article so that you were both aware since the script "saw" the creator as the the one who created the article deleted in 2023. I'm guessing the history was somewhere as this is a remarkable first edit even assuming Rledder had been active as an IP before registering for easy creation. Star Mississippi 12:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just didn't want the potential contradiction between my initial actions (removing the redirect) and my comment here [to restore it] to confuse the closer or anyone else looking into this AfD, so I thought I would clarify that the merge was more about attribution and page history than about notability. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect with history in tact to The Masked Singer (Australian TV series)#Controversy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. I created this in good-faith but for some reason a promotional version was restored - I've removed unsourced and promotional content. Halocene has received coverage beyond The Masked Singer controversy, coverage dates back to 2011 when Phoenix New Times covered it ([29]). Two state-level publications have covered it including Phoenix New Times and Arizona Republic and meets WP:SIGCOV thresold. Phoenix New Times covered it in-depth in 2011, 2017, and 2020. Rock Sound covered it in 2023. None of these sources were provided by editors in the previous draft or deletion discussion. There are more references in music magazines as well and should be kept. Rledder (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for cleaning up the article and for leaving a detailed comment here. I see what I consider to be an acceptable variability in judgment on which sources show the band meets GNG (or WP:NBAND). The first two [external] links are to the same source (explaining for closer's convenience)—and it is an interview, which is not independent of the subject and doesn't help determine if they meet GNG. I have no firm opinion on the 2017 PNT article; the 2020 one does meet the WP:SIRS criteria. I read the 2023 Rock Sound piece as a routine announcement (of a new release) and thus not significant coverage of the band (and maybe not even for the single itself, tangentially). Returning to the topic at hand, I do not know if we have had consensus that two sources shows that this subject meets GNG. As nominator said, this discussion will hopefully clarify that and the evaluation for notability purposes of the sources we can find. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying for closer that WP:SIRS in my reply above simply refers to the bullet points under WP:GNG: secondary sources independent of the subject, reliable, and contain significant coverage of the subject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the band passes WP:GNG/WP:NBAND. As it currently stands, with two articles that meet WP:SIRS criteria, it passes that test. While I see merit in the redirect option, a read into the band's article and the sources linked suggests that while the controversy surrounding The Masked Singer did play a major factor, their notability is not solely derived from that incident.

(also a minor declaration that I was the one who happened to patrol the article as Rotideypoc mentioned) Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share the sources which you feel show it passes GNG/NBAND? Also, how does SIRS apply as that is a company guideline? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SIRS does apply to the source materials, which shows a likely level of notability associated with the subject. In this case, having at least one quoted article in 2019 coming from The Arizona Republic - the most widely circulated newspaper in Arizona - infers a presumable notability that goes statewide.

In addition to The Masked Singer controversy article(s), one of which was the aforementioned quoted article, the 2020 Phoenix New Times article @Rledder mentioned earlier in the discussion states that the band has taken what was back in 2020 considered a lesser-adopted approach to Twitch as a platform, and are recognized by the streaming platform for it. That in itself merits independent notability from The Masked Singer, and a degree of notability that is non-trivial. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but SIRS has NO application for this page. It is a subject specific notability guideline dealing with companies, not musicians and/or bands. You have also failed to cite the requested sources that show notability under GNG or NBAND. Do you have those available for the discussion? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede on the SIRS part as this may have been my misunderstanding on how it's applied in sources. As to the requested sources: The Arizona Republic article (reference 9), as well as the PNT article in question (reference 4). Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for conceding. The AP article is paywalled but I am assuming it was prior to 2023? I should have specified that I am looking for sources showing notability since the last deletion discussion where it was found they were not notable. We are not here to relitigate the previous AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here and, in some parts of the discussion, not even agreement on acceptable standards for sources. I think a bit more discussion will help and maybe a bit more editor participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per DemocracyDeprivationDisorder. Close enough to meet WP:GNG. 38.74.35.75 (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Liz:, I only see three keep !votes. One from an SPA, one from an IP, and one from a user who conceded they do not understand the requirements for sourcing. I realize that AfD is not a vote count but wanted to point it out if it helps to show a more clear consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Guild of Music & Speech

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

Exam fails WP:GNG. Sources are nothing but primary sources. GTrang (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Education, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GTrang,

thanks for flagging this. Have briefly revised the page with some further secondary sources to demonstrate some notability. Very best, Saltysuperbananafruit (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My source-quality scanner picks up "possibly AI-generated slop", flagging all references except 1, 4, 6. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this relevant if ChatGPT is merely used assess the quality of secondary sources? The article has a clear chain in its edit history and is obviously not AI-produced. Saltysuperbananafruit (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in google news or books. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that until 2024, this organisation was named the Australian Guild of Music Education, so most sources will be under that name. I am currently looking for sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumar Gadimova

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

This article does not yet appear to be notable for English Wikipedia Insufficient Sources, and the topic may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Lists of people, Music, and Popular culture. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumar Gadimova is a well-known figure in Azerbaijani pop music and is widely recognized by the public in the country. Her artistic career has been covered by numerous reliable and independent sources such as APA, AzərTAc, Musavat, and Report. She has been active in the music industry since the 1990s, performing solo concerts, with her songs broadcast on national television and radio, and has participated in several state-level events.

The article is based on verifiable and independent sources, and the subject clearly meets the notability criteria due to her impact on Azerbaijani culture and public recognition. For these reasons, I oppose the deletion of the article and recommend that it be kept.Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being selected as an 'Honored artist' by the Azerbaijan government should be enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. I found sources stating this, but all are in Azerbaijani and I'm not sure if they're reliable enough.[30] [31] — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://president.az/az/articles/view/22993 The official website of the President of the country has reported on this. Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw it. But independent, reliable sources are needed, and that is a primary source, which is not great. Are there others? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bakupost.az/xumar-qedimovaya-emekdar-artist-oldu https://mia.az/mobil/1075536 https://rublika.az/index.php?newsid=22845 https://etikxeber.az/xumar-q%C9%99dimova-%C9%99m%C9%99kdar-artist-oldu/ https://hit.az/az/senet/264643/emekdar-artist-konserte-hazirlasir/ https://musavat.com/ru/mobile/news/bacisi-xumar-qedimova-emekdar-artist-olmasindan-xebersizdir_420423.html https://www.gununsesi.info/xumar-q%C9%99dimovaya-%C9%99m%C9%99kdar-artist-adi-verildi/ https://baku.ws/show-business/xumar-qdimovaya-mkdar-artist-ad-verildi-srncam https://azxeber.com/az/emekdar-artist-turkiyede-trend-oldu/maqazin/ https://news24.az/180697-emekdar-artist-sevenlerine-seslendi.html Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are those independent, reliable sources? Linkbombing is not enough for a discussion. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://president.az/az/articles/view/22993 The most reliable source. The country's president's own official website Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Being selected as an 'Honored artist' by the Azerbaijani government, which is a national level recognition, is enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noting that the Azerbaijani spelling of her name is Xumar Qədimova (which I have added to the article). Searching on this spelling will probably bring up more sources in that language. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep above information and additional sources have been sufficient to determine notability as well as WP:ANYBIO#1 with a national honour and yes, WP:NEXISTS. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the above comments and cited references in this article. It passes WP:ANYBIO. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FyaVerse

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)

^ "Stop". Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 29, no. 60. Ljubljana. 13 March 1987. p. 16. Retrieved 29 May 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.
^ "Spored za Soboto - Televizija - Zagreb I" [Schedule for Saturday - Television - Zagreb I]. Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 32, no. 64. Ljubljana. 17 March 1990. p. 14. Retrieved 29 May 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.
^ "Ostale bodo le pesmi" [Only Songs Will Remain]. Novi Tednik (in Slovenian). Vol. 45, no. 21. 30 May 1991. p. 26. Retrieved 29 May 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.
^ "Londonski Lekcija" [London's Lesson]. Panorama (in Slovenian). Vol. 1, no. 13. Glas. 30 March 1963. p. 5. Retrieved 21 March 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.
^ Galić, Mirko, ed. (2016). "Opatijski festival" [Opatija Festival]. Leksikon Radija i Televizije [Lexicon of Radio and Television] (PDF) (in Croatian) (2 ed.). Hrvatska radiotelevizija. pp. 368–369. ISBN 978-953-303-912-1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 March 2021. Retrieved 1 May 2025.
^ "Obvestila - Spored - Mali Oglasi: RTV" [Announcements - Schedule - Small Ads: RTV]. Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 2, no. 22. Ljubljana. 24 January 1961. p. 9. Retrieved 20 March 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.
^ "Tedenski Program Radia Ljubljana od 12. do 19. Februarja 1961: Četrtek II. Program" [Weekly Program of Radio Ljubljana from 12th to 19th February 1961: Thursday II. Program]. Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 3, no. 40. Ljubljana. 11 February 1961. p. 9. Retrieved 20 March 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.
^ G., V. (7 February 1971). "Najbolša v Dublin: Jugoslovanski final za „Pesem Evrovizije"" [The best in Dublin: Yugoslav final for the “Eurovision Song”]. Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 13, no. 35. Ljubljana. p. 5. Retrieved 21 April 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.

[1] "Stop". Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 29, no. 60. Ljubljana. 13 March 1987. p. 16. Retrieved 29 May 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.

[2] "Spored za Soboto - Televizija - Zagreb I" [Schedule for Saturday - Television - Zagreb I]. Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 32, no. 64. Ljubljana. 17 March 1990. p. 14. Retrieved 29 May 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.

[3] "Ostale bodo le pesmi" [Only Songs Will Remain]. Novi Tednik (in Slovenian). Vol. 45, no. 21. 30 May 1991. p. 26. Retrieved 29 May 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.

[4] "Londonski Lekcija" [London's Lesson]. Panorama (in Slovenian). Vol. 1, no. 13. Glas. 30 March 1963. p. 5. Retrieved 21 March 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.

[5] Galić, Mirko, ed. (2016). "Opatijski festival" [Opatija Festival]. Leksikon Radija i Televizije [Lexicon of Radio and Television] (PDF) (in Croatian) (2 ed.). Hrvatska radiotelevizija. pp. 368–369. ISBN 978-953-303-912-1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 March 2021. Retrieved 1 May 2025.

[6] "Obvestila - Spored - Mali Oglasi: RTV" [Announcements - Schedule - Small Ads: RTV]. Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 2, no. 22. Ljubljana. 24 January 1961. p. 9. Retrieved 20 March 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.

[7] "Tedenski Program Radia Ljubljana od 12. do 19. Februarja 1961: Četrtek II. Program" [Weekly Program of Radio Ljubljana from 12th to 19th February 1961: Thursday II. Program]. Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 3, no. 40. Ljubljana. 11 February 1961. p. 9. Retrieved 20 March 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.

[8] G., V. (7 February 1971). "Najbolša v Dublin: Jugoslovanski final za „Pesem Evrovizije"" [The best in Dublin: Yugoslav final for the “Eurovision Song”]. Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 13, no. 35. Ljubljana. p. 5. Retrieved 21 April 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]