Listing Emma Hill |
Listing The Polar Bear |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Bands and musicians== |
==Bands and musicians== |
||
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line --> |
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Polar Bear}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Hill}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Hill}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivar Damian (2nd nomination)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivar Damian (2nd nomination)}} |
Revision as of 00:46, 17 April 2009
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Bands and musicians. 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:
- 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|Bands and musicians|~~~~}} 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 Bands and musicians. 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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
Purge page cache | watch |
- Related deletion sorting
Bands and musicians
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as pure vandalism (CSD G3) — Gwalla | Talk 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Polar Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a nonnotable band that fails WP:BAND. Nothing in the "history" section is able to be verified with a quick google search (was hip hop and heavy metal even around in the 1950's?) Their website is in primitive condition and is definitly not that of a famous 50 year old band. ThemFromSpace 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find anything to show notability either. —FrehleySpace Ace 00:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete
Looks to be hoax, but really is plain vandalism. Of course there was no heavy metal, nor hip hop then--the entire article is nonsense, and should have been speedied as vandalism. JNW (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Delete Article does not meed our standards for notability as it is not mentioned in reliable, third party sources (or anywhere at all, for that matter). tempodivalse [☎] 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No such thing as "heavy metal" in the 1950's. South Bay (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax, and a pretty obvious one at that. No bands are together for 50 years and make millions of dollars without anyone noticing. Second, "but was paralized from the testicles up" is an odd sentence from the article as no one is paralyzed like that. He only has use of his legs? Paralysis doesn't work like that, as there isn't a brain in your feet. Also, heavy metal was not around in the '50s, like South Bay pointed out. Tavix | Talk 02:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - very obvious feeble hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax for hip hop heavy metal from the 1950s to the 2000s. Hekerui (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Valley2city‽ 07:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- RelistedI have reversed my decision in order to relist in light of the changes made by Paul Erik in order to allow people to weigh in on them. Information on the reasoning can be found at the bottom of my talk page Valley2city‽ 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Emma Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable from a non-notable "record company", possibly autobiographical. Bothpath (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: a lot of the content appears to have been simply cut-and-paste off the http://www.emmahillmusic.com/pages/bio.html website. Not sure there is enough to warrant a G12 speedy. JamesBurns (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no sources, no notability established... DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no reliable independent sources, possible self-promotion. JamesBurns (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - I was only able to find 1 mention in a reliable source [1] and it only consists of an announcement about an upcoming performance. No significant 3rd party coverage. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- still not convinced that minor coverage, based on press releases, in local papers is "significant coverage". -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one source does not notability make, as they say Vartanza (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added more sources just now. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With two articles about her in the Anchorage Daily News, and one in the Vacaville Reporter that I just added, I'd suggest a keep per WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no link for the Anchorage article, but the Vacaville Reporter (so minor of a paper that it doesn't have its own Wiipedia article, just a page with a list of small papers owned by a parent company) looks to be nothing more than a republished press release, thus failing the independent and nontrivial clauses of notability guidelines. Local papers don't go very far in establishing notability for an encyclopedia anyway. Notable entertainers would have picked up more coverage than that. In fact I have relatives who do local gigs and self-produce albums who clearly do not meet notability standards who have better local news coverage than that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading your comment and looking again, I must agree with you about the Reporter article sounding like a press release, so I have removed that one. In the meantime, I found one other article in the Daily News. With the two fairly lengthy articles and one brief article about her, I was able to add some more verifiable content, and there is more from them that still could be added. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no link for the Anchorage article, but the Vacaville Reporter (so minor of a paper that it doesn't have its own Wiipedia article, just a page with a list of small papers owned by a parent company) looks to be nothing more than a republished press release, thus failing the independent and nontrivial clauses of notability guidelines. Local papers don't go very far in establishing notability for an encyclopedia anyway. Notable entertainers would have picked up more coverage than that. In fact I have relatives who do local gigs and self-produce albums who clearly do not meet notability standards who have better local news coverage than that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What, we have to vote Double Dog Dare You Delete for the delete we already voted on to actually go through? If the person ever becomes actually notable then recreate the article, there's no need to drag this out. DreamGuy (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had added sources fairly close to the end of the discussion cycle. I thought it was enough to meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSICBIO; you disagreed. That's fine, but I do not see the harm in asking others to weigh in with their own opinions about this disagreement. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That relisting was entirely warranted. Everyone who called for deletion before said the article had no reliable sources when what really matters if such sources exist. - Mgm|(talk) 08:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Also found this, so at least she has received coverage in two sources.--Michig (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are more than four references on the web to my mum and that does not make her notable. Trevor Marron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Sweet, have you made a wiki article for your momma then???? Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but here we're talking newspaper references. Also, you didn't mention where those references to your mom came from. I'm mentioned around the web dozens of times, but I'm not notable because non of the references are reliable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actully all references to my mum are to mainstream UK newspaper articles. It is still not enough to make her worthy of a Wikipedia page. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above.--Unionhawk Talk 20:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ivar Damian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article seems to be a repost of an earlier article. The previous AfD was speedily closed before any discussion, due to an apparent request by the article's creator, User:Tonlist through a blanking of the page. The same issues generally remain, particularly the fact that the subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. This time, I recommend that this AfD be allowed to carried through to completion. Dancter (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N and WP:MUSICBIO. ThemFromSpace 05:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This should have gone straight to speedy delete as per db-bio. Issuing a demo CD does not make you notable. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 09:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mars Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Does not demonstrate notability under WP:MUSIC or biographical guidelines, lacking non-trivial third party coverage from reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-15t18:56z
- Keep, possible Speedy Keep as WP:POINT violation. I contested this at DRV, and within minutes after restoration this AfD was initiated, obviously with no work put into looking for sources before doing so. The artist meets WP:MUSIC for having two releases on Team Love Records; see also [2] (Allmusic), [3] (PopMatters), [4], [5] (Pitchfork Media), etc. Chubbles (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call this a violation of WP:POINT, since DRV is not required to overturn a prod, and because you, acting in good faith, essentially contested the PROD after its deletion, and JBsupreme acting in good faith nominated it for AFD like is standard for any other contested prod. By the way I am Neutral on this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chubbles this article appeared on my watchlist as a contested prod. I searched Google News archives and found no evidence that this artist meets WP:MUSIC. The links you provided do not help the cause either. JBsupreme (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I provided four non-trivial, third party pieces of coverage from reliable publications. Chubbles (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:N and WP:MUSIC are met by the sources added by Chubbles. sparkl!sm hey! 20:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'd say the Allmusic bio and Pitchfork review are sufficient as non-trivial independent published works, even if Pitchfork says he's mostly notable for being terrible. Also, Conor Oberst's label Team Love Records is an "important indie label (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)", so he meets WP:BAND criterion #5 as well. I don't, however, see anything POINTy about this nomination, which appears to have been made according to process and in good faith, so chillax, peoples. — Gwalla | Talk 22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Verifiability is clearly not a problem and if the reliable sources confirm they had two albums on a notable label, WP:MUSIC isn't in question either. I really don't see why it got nominated. - Mgm|(talk) 22:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of the 2 Allmusic refs is an argument for keeping, but PopMatters and Pitchfork Media are nowhere near encyclopedic RSes. It still fails wp:music 5 (labels: Team Love Records), and 2 (charts) according to Billboard, which has pages on both albums [6] [7], but nothing on anything of his ever charting anywhere: [8]. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-17t12:43z
- How does Team Love Records not meet WP:MUSIC#5? It's been around for about 6 years and has several notable bands and artists on its roster. And at any rate, an artist only has to meet one of the music criteria to qualify, not all. — Gwalla | Talk 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of the 2 Allmusic refs is an argument for keeping, but PopMatters and Pitchfork Media are nowhere near encyclopedic RSes. It still fails wp:music 5 (labels: Team Love Records), and 2 (charts) according to Billboard, which has pages on both albums [6] [7], but nothing on anything of his ever charting anywhere: [8]. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-17t12:43z
- Keep: PopMatters is a reliable source: It's been used as a source of information by The New York Times[9][10], it's archived by one of the leading music journalists archive sites[11] and it has had essays published in books - most notably in Da Capo's Best Music Writing 2006[12]. I'm pretty sure I could come up with similar for Pitchfork, but I don't need to as PopMatters and Allmusic make that multiple reliable sources. --JD554 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jorge Ferreira (Portuguese singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article and related sub-articles are a hoax. Jorge Ferreira is presented as a huge Portuguese musician, when in fact he is a minor Pimba Portuguese American musician. I am also nominating the following related pages because they have no notability and sources, they are just an article for each and every one of Jorge Ferreira's records (including singles and compilations):
- Amar Como Jesus Amou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Viva Fall River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Os Olhos De Minha Mãe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Baile Dos Passarinhos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Papai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Carro Preto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mãe Ja Partiste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Encontro Em "Fall River" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sonho Desfeito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Não Há Gente Como A Gente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Deixei Meu Coração Em Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Olhos Verdes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Recordar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Regresso Prometido (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nos Arraiais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Era Pouco E Acabou-se (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Canta Natal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Prova De Amor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- A Portuguesa É A Mais Linda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 13 De Maio Na Cova De Iria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Natal Em Familia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Revelações Do Milénio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Açoriano De Raiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Eu Voltarei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- A Chupeta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Como Este Mundo Mudou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vem Agosto, Vem Agosto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- As Velhas E Os Solteirões (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bendito Seja Agosto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Natal com Jorge Ferreira e Família (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Meu Coração Bate Por Ti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- É Bom É Bom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Manel Aperta O Cinto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 20 Canções - 20 Sucessos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Álbum de Recordações (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ao Vivo Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- O Melhor De (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Êxitos Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cantor dos Emigrantes Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Êxitos Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cantor dos Emigrantes Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Êxitos Vol. 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- ...De Colección (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Antologia Sucessos 1983–1988 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Êxitos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cantor dos Emigrantes Vol. 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ao Vivo em Ponte da Barca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Viva Fall River (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Quando Vai Chegar A Paz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Viva, Viva New Bedford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- O Mundo Triste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chau / Canção Das Crianças (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- O Sol Ainda Está Fora / Carta Aos Meus Amiguinhos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Este Natal Santo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The following related images should also be deleted:
- File:Jorge Ferreira WKPD.JPG
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Amar Como Jesus Amou (LP album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Viva Fall River (US Version Clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Os Olhos De Minha Mãe (CD album clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Baile Dos Passarinhos (CD album clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Papai (US Version Clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Carro Preto (US Version Clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Mãe Já Partiste (US Version Clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Sonho Desfeito (US Version Clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Não Há Gente Como A Gente (CD album clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Deixei Meu Coração Em Portugal (LP album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Olhos Verdes (US Version Clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Recordar (CD album clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Regresso Prometido (US Version) - Large view.jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Nos Arraiais (CD album clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Era Pouco E Acabou-se (CD album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Canta Natal (CD album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Prova De Amor (US Version).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - A Portuguesa É A Mais Linda (CD album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - 13 De Maio Na Cova De Iria (CD album) - Large view.jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Natal Em Familia (CD album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Revelações Do Milénio (CD album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Açoriano De Raiz (CD album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Eu Voltarei (CD album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - A Chupeta (US Version).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Como Este Mundo Mudou (US Version).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Vem Agosto, Vem Agosto (CD album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - As Velhas E Os Solteirões (CD album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Bendito Seja Agosto (CD album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Natal Com Jorge Ferreira E Familia (CD album clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Meu Coração Bate Por Ti (CD album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - É Bom É Bom (CD album) - Large view.jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Manel Aperta O Cinto (US Version).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Ao Vivo Vol. 1 (CD album).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - O Melhor De (CD compilation).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Super Êxitos Vol. 1 (CD compilation).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Cantor Dos Emigrantes Vol. 1 (CD compilation clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Super Êxitos Vol. 2 (US Version).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Cantor Dos Emigrantes Vol. 2 (CD compilation clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Super Êxitos Vol. 3 (CD compilation).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira & Liz Marie - ...De Colección (CD compilation).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Antologia Sucessos 1983 - 1988 (CD compilation).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Êxitos (CD compilation).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Cantor dos Emigrantes Vol. 3 (CD compilation clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Ao Vivo em Ponte da Barca (MP3 album clean).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - O Mundo Triste (45 RPM single).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Viva Fall River (EP LP).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Este Natal Santo (MP3 single).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Viva, Viva New Bedford (EP LP).jpg
- File:Jorge Ferreira - Quando Vai Chegar A Paz (EP LP).jpg
These articles and images are basically the result of the work of a very limited number of editors (see Contributors):
- It was created by CFernandes75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in his sole edit in wikipedia.
- 81.65.196.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (account tracked to Numericable, Champs sur Marne, Paris: about 10 miles from Vitry-sur-Seine, Paris, location of Nicky Lemos Production, Jorge Ferreira's European agent see this discussion).
- 81.65.197.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (account also tracked to Nicky Lemos Production).
- 81.67.242.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (account also tracked to Nicky Lemos Production).
- Robotixi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the present big editor of this article, all the previous ones have disappeared. I suspect him to be the same person as the others (he even goes to the point of uploading a picture, one of many, where he states he is "the copyright holder of this work" at the same time saying that the author is "Claudio Fernandes; Source: Panasonic DMC-FX10 Lumix image transferred to the computer "FC"; URL: C:\Documents and Settings\Claudio\Mes documents\Mes images\Jorge Ferreira WKPD.JPG" - notice the French names in the computer... this clearly looks like user CFernandes75!).
Despite these, Nhl4hamilton and User:Hello Control (good faith established editor) also tried to do something with the article so that it could be acceptable. They failed due to the actions of the aforementioned editors whom I believe are the same person or organization. Notice that they have the same manner of editing - they hardly or never explain their actions in the talk page (and there have been some discussions about the notability and sources in the article's talk page), they never reply to questions made in their respective talk pages, and they never make any edit sumaries.
Also, and this is the main reason for this deletion proposal, Jorge Ferreira is presented as a huge Portuguese musician and even as a symbol of Portuguese culture. I, as a Portuguese have never heard of him. But of course I am not a reliable source. That is the point exactly. No reliable source is presented for the article and sub-articles in question - notice the references in the article, they are either a small interview in a local newspaper or basically spam! The editor, namely Robotixi, just ignores all the maintenance tags (and is continuously removing them) and continues to add details and statements of grandeur about this obscure musician (going to the point of adding paragraphs about him in a diversity of non-related articles such as New England). I believe that this article and sub-articles (and their number is huge, along with images uploaded) is a propaganda hoax, trying to give notability through wikipedia to a singer that has little to start with.
User Husond also believes this to be a blantant case of WP:POV, WP:COI and WP:VSCA
It should be deleted and the mentioned main editor investigated for sockpuppetry. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: All the mentioned users have been invited to participate in this debate. The Ogre (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
- Delete Unless better sources than the subject's hometown newspaper or his web site can be found to verify all the gold records he is claimed to have here and in Portugal. The local paper article sounds like it is quoting his press release. On the talk page of the article, editors have stated they have not been able to find his "hits" in the relevant Portuguese music charts. His "big hit" Viva Fall River (EP) is claimed to have sold 10,000 copies and to be a "gold record," but in the US it takes at least 500,000 copies sold to get that recognition per RIAA. Better referencing than the singer's web site is necessary. Edison (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Maybe relevant, maybe not: The article has apparently be deleted from ptwiki [13]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I could not find a link to the deletion debate on the Portuguese Wiki. Is there one? Apparently the editors there were 9 to 0 in favor of deletion. Edison (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the page, but there's not a lot of discussion there. [14] — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, those guys on Portuguese Wiki just plain "vote" with no reason given. What a concept! Edison (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact that is a completely different Jorge Ferreira (member of a Portuguese band called The Other Side). The lack of reasons has to due with the fact that the main article (about the band) had been deleted because of non-notability (subsequentely all the separate articles for the individual band members were also deleted). The Ogre (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell there is no article, and there has never been one, about the Jorge Ferreira in question in the Portuguese wikipedia. That goes a long way to disprove any claims of notability... The Ogre (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact that is a completely different Jorge Ferreira (member of a Portuguese band called The Other Side). The lack of reasons has to due with the fact that the main article (about the band) had been deleted because of non-notability (subsequentely all the separate articles for the individual band members were also deleted). The Ogre (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, those guys on Portuguese Wiki just plain "vote" with no reason given. What a concept! Edison (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the page, but there's not a lot of discussion there. [14] — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I could not find a link to the deletion debate on the Portuguese Wiki. Is there one? Apparently the editors there were 9 to 0 in favor of deletion. Edison (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as utter vanispamcruftisement. Húsönd 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ola bom dia Ogre. Eu apresento-me : o meu nome é Claudio Fernandes, sou o usuario chamado Robotixi (CFernandes75). Sou filho de emigrantes madeirenses em Paris e tenho 27 anos. Em primeiro, eu queria pedir desculpa a todos aqueles a quem eu não falei sobre o meu artigo, incluindo você. Sou um grande fan do cantor Jorge Ferreira, que eu escuto desde os meus 5 anos de idade. É verdade que este cantor tem mais sucesso no estrangeiro, principalmente nos Estados Unidos, do que em Portugal mesmo, porque éle é um cantor da emigração portuguesa. De facto, em vista dos anos desde que eu o escuto, este cantor tem um valor muito importante para mim, sentimental, afectual, familiar e nostalgico. Quem sabe apreciar a musica, a voz, o talento deste artista em todas as suas canções descobre um grande senhor da musica popular portuguesa, com mais de 30 anos de carreira, um grande cantor português exceptional, que normalmente hoje em dia devia ter ainda mais sucesso e ainda mais fama do que actualmente, pois este cantor não é reconhecido ao seu real valor. Eu sempre defendi o Jorge Ferreira em toda parte, eu sempre defendi a minha pagina neste Wikipedia, e sempre continuarei de o fazer. A explicação das minhas cancelações dos seus manutenciamentos é muito simples : Cada vez que eu escrevo um detalhe no meu artigo, para mim eu penso que a notabilidade esta posta. Ou cada vez que eu ponho uma referência, eu penso que o artigo ja esta mais credivél. Eu não conheço muito o funcionamento de Wikipedia e queria vos pedir perdão e também ajuda. É por isso que eu pesso a você para não cancelar a pagina Jorge Ferreira (Portuguese singer), por favor. Eu estou pronto a contacta-o para falar com você fora do Wikipedia, no seu E-mail personal, se você quer, e também posso o dar o meu e-mail personal. Assim, a gente fala-se os dois, a dizer-me por favor qual são exactamente as partes do meu artigo que não passa a vista, que falta referência ou que esta mal escrito, o que falta, etc... Eu farei o maximo para reescrever o meu artigo com a vossa ajuda, e também tomarei eu a ocasião para aprender com você o sistema do Wikipedia. Mais por favor, seja indulgente, não cancela o meu artigo !! Eu espero ansiosamente uma resposta sua. Muito obrigado. Robofr 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a machine translation of Robotixi's comment — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and good day Ogre. Let me introduce myself: my name is Claudio Fernandes, and I'm the user called Robotixi (CFernandes75). I am the son of Madeiran immigrants in Paris and I have 27 years. First, I wanted to apologize to all of those to whom I did not talk about my article, including you. I am a big fan of singer Jorge Ferreira, which I listen since I was 5 years of age. It is true that this singer has more success abroad, especially in the United States, than in Portugal itsef, because he is a singer of Portuguese emigration. Indeed, in view of the years I have been listening to this singer, he has a very important value for me, sentimental, of feelings, family-connected and nostalgic. Those of are able to enjoy the music, the voice, the talent of this artist in all his songs find a great master of Portuguese popular music, with over 30 years of career, a great singer Portuguese exceptional, which normally today should have more success and fame more than now, because this singer is not recognized for its real value. I have always defended Jorge Ferreira everywhere, I have always defended my page in Wikipedia, and will always continue to do so. The explanation for my removel of your maintenance tags is very simple: Each time I write a detail in my article, I think that notability is proven. Or every time I put a reference, I think the article is more credible. I do not know much about Wikipedia functioning, and I wanted to ask for your forgiveness and help. That is why I ask you personally not to delete the page Jorge Ferreira (Portuguese singer), please. I am ready to contact you and talk to you outside of Wikipedia, in your personal e-mail, and, if you want, I can also give you my personal e-mail. Thus, we two can talk, so you can tell me please which exactly are the parts of my article that do not pass inspection, lack references or is poorly written, what's missing, etc ... I will do my best to rewrite my article with your help, and I also take this opportunity to learn from you the system of Wikipedia. Even more, please, be indulgent, do not cancel my article! I eagerly await your answer. Thank you very much.
- Note: Corrected the machine translation. My bold. The Ogre (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Robofr, this is the English Wikipedia, please use English in your comments. The fact that you admire this singer so much is unfortunately not enough for him to have an article on Wikipedia. We have criteria for notability that one must meet before having an article on themselves. Please read the criteria for inclusion. Hmm, do I recognize your signature from somewhere? Húsönd 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a machine translation of Robotixi's comment — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--phew, that will be one fell swoop if the AfD ends with 'delete.' I see no evidence whatsoever of this person's notability, or of that of the many records. With appreciation for nominator's blood, sweat, and tears. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I actually have "A Portuguesa É A Mais Linda" in my playlist, but this is some serious cruft here. If - if - a neutral biography of Ferreira can be written, then I have no prejudice against recreation, but what we have now is just excessive. - Biruitorul Talk 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all collected articles. This singer is largely unknown in Portugal, and certainly not notable enough to warrant an article. Same goes for the articles about his songs. Flamarande (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable/hoax. To the closing admin, you have your work cut out for you. :) TheAE talk/sign 19:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- James Campagnola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable musician - 327 ghits (includes many blogs and wiki mirrors), names dropped but proving unverifiable, eg. [15], no solo releases or awards TheClashFan (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has not recieved sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to warrant an article:
- Google web search finds his website, facebook profile, and nothing else related.
- Google news search brings up nothing at all.
- It actually reads like an advertisement to me.--Pattont/c 13:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – The nominator has been indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable as above. I browsed through the artist's website but could not find resources there either. Hazir (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Daniel Benjamin Buxton. MBisanz talk 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Buxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable musician - article relies heavily on his myspace page, no widespread 3rd party coverage, no awards, no charts, has released only one self-funded EP TheClashFan (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – The nominator has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article duplication, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of the nominator. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to Daniel Benjamin Buxton, they're the same person (really this shouldn't have come to AfD methinks, but n/m) Kingpin13 (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicates existing article. Speedy redirect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. db author speedy --GedUK 19:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderwars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band. Speedy declined. No references can be found. The band's label ("Black Hawk Label Records") cannot be found. A closely related "Black Hawk Records" CAN be found, but was a jazz label in the 50s, not a thrash metal label. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The article's author (Transambytrial (talk · contribs)) has requested a {{db-author}} deletion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tuan Anh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't see any real claim to notability here. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability not established, does not appear to have won any awards or charted. JamesBurns (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - no evidence of much at all--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- D. Gift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Although this (stub) article appears to be well-written, and he does have a website, the only Google hits I could find on this person at all are from message boards that lead back to Wikipedia. In addition, his debut album (whose article was deleted itself) was apparently supposed to have been released in December 2007 but never was, and this article hasn't been touched at all since September 2007. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 13:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete as not-notable artist. SYSS Mouse (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability not established, trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yuri George Jan Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Working--but not notable--musician. Not a member of any well-known band, no significant solo works, and no claims or reliable sources attesting otherwise. Part of a walled garden created by one editor's sole contributions, including The McCartney Years (band), Out Of Thin Air (album) and London Music Award. CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I would like to officially add Out Of Thin Air (album) to this nomination. I had added a prod tag to it, but as User:MacGyverMagic has 'resolved' the tagging by redirecting it to Yuri George Jan Pool, it seems only fitting to make things explicit. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This article is not a walled garden. Enough outside references that are reliable as well as verifiable oppose this claim. The artist in question is in fact notable and significant with clear and easy to find press coverage in major newspapers and TV network(s) (also as referred to in the original article). In general, incorrect claims and no references are made by primary plaintiff to support his/her claim.
I am open to discuss any recommendations to improve the article.
Regards, Rickgalliard (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This article is in compliance with the following Wikipedia guidelines:
- WP:BAND Article #12: "Has been the the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" Runtime 31:21 minutes, live broadcast on A-Channel on January 30, 2009.[16]
- WP:NOTABILITY ""Significant coverage"" The sources address the subject directly in detail [17]
- WP:NOTABILITY ""Reliable"" The sources indicated have editorial integrity, cf. the reliable source guideline as set out by Wikipedia (third party published sources); major newspaper.
This proves the article meets the above guidelines and should be kept live. Regards, Rickgalliard (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ' WP:BAND Article #12: "Has been the the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" Runtime 31:21 minutes, live broadcast on A-Channel on January 30'
- Except that it's obviously a single local television station, not a national network, and there's no evidence of any over-the-air transmission, just an on-line video.
- 'Significant coverage"" The sources address the subject directly in detail'
- Except that it's a single story from a local newspaper, its subject is the publicity stunt, and as it's only a few paragraphs in length it covers nothing in detail.
- ' The sources indicated have editorial integrity'
- Except that that clause is irrelevant if there's no coverage that's applicable. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The subject of this article is not yet notable. Fails WP:CREATIVE and therefore should be deleted. The article could be re-written and re-submitted after the artist has achieved major distribution and/or chart success. Esasus (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no significant coverage in 3rd party sources, no awards, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete (NAC). TheAE talk/sign 05:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sam's the Hero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete I suppose its claim to meeting WP:BAND is that it has released a few EP's on a bluelink label - nominated below for deletion. Again, this is a band sourced to its own websites and shows no sign of notability once its label is deleted (and do EP's count?) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried a search of Google News archives, and also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but could not find any sources that would help to establish WP:N notability (just a couple of performance listings in The Virginian-Pilot). Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Paul Erik. I could not find any substantial coverage by reliable 3rd party sources either. It fails WP:N Timmeh! 02:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cellophane (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BAND; content is copied from the band's Myspace page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just another non-notable myspace band.Keep passes WP:MUSIC#C1 & C5. How the hell I missed the Allmusic entry in my searches God only knows. I need to clean my glasses me thinks. Sorry for that Team. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete: no significant independent coverage, possible copyvio, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were at ozzfest just trying to make a page that could be helpful but just delete I've never heard about the band till yesterday. Then Delete it this is taking way to long you say you want to delete it well are you rubbing it in my face or do you like to drag it out. Captain Chrisma come to RAW (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that qualifies as Speedy Delete per G7. Somebody want to close this? Nikkimaria (talk)
- Not so fast, please. There is at least one reliable source, a review of their debut album at Allmusic. It also seems that said album, Cellophane, was released on a major label, Virgin Records, in 1997, and their second album, Wandering Man, released in 2000 on Universal/Polygram. On that basis, I'd suggest that WP:MUSIC#5 is met, so I'm voting Keep, despite the article creator's protestations. sparkl!sm hey! 16:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, I've tried to improve the article a little by adding some refs and cleaning up - hopefully this is worth another look now. Thanks sparkl!sm hey! 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – In addition to what others found, I also found an article about this band in The Herald, which I added just now. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources found demonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The new sources warrant the article inclusion under WP:V. ƒingersonRoids 22:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tea for julie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability asserted, but not to the level required by WP:MUSIC WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage, no assertion to notability, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JamesBurns has been indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [18][19] is all I could find in two minutes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From seeing their name around town, my sense is that they probably meet the notability criterion, but I'm not sure how to best find the sources to support that gut feeling. Hope somebody can provide some good citations. -Pete (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I added a couple of sources just now. The band received a nomination for Album of the Year at the Portland Music Awards. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scant coverage. They appear to have no more than one non charting release to their name. Iam (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Indef-blocked sockpuppet of JamesBurns. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Reluctant delete. It would be good to see the article saved but there are just insufficient WP:RS to justify an article. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've been going through a list of links that band member Michael sent me, and gradually adding to the article. The Willamette Week's in-depth review of the band's 2nd album, combined with the Mercury's review that was already cited, appears to satisfy the first criterion of WP:MUSIC. I believe there is more to support a claim of notability, which I'm working on; just trying to sort out which of the links he sent me would qualify as WP:RS. -Pete (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per substantial coverage in additional sources found.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gian Luca Mazza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable article subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wether B (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, non-notable artist. JamesBurns (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: He's Italian and Asian notable pop new age artist. He's producer Love Orchestra too: Tribal dance, I am, Let it pray and more again (TV signature Piccole curiosità della natura). Saxophonenotes (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC) — Saxophonenotes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep: More rock sensitive and notable Italian artist.Oldyoungrockgeneration 13:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC) — Oldyoungrockgeneration (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per rampant puppetry, no evidence of third-party coverage; member of two equally non-notable groups. Kimchi.sg (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for not passing the WP:Music or the WP:N bar. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete me...please.
I'm very happy who someone writed about me and my music career. I'm really honoured who someone think I'm ready to be in wikipedia world... but never I can think it's a problem this for someboby. If some people don't know me it's normal. I'm not a musicians who produdec 1.000.000 of radio single but only 20.000. Very special thanks to everybody who believe in my music, really thanks. Have a nice days. Gian Luca "Luke" Mazza. 11:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.183.84.233 (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Atle Bakken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
NPOV, unsourced, unverifiable. Bdb484 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - would appear to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO (section 10) if his claims of writing for Martin the TV show but 15 minutes of searching turned up no evidence of such. Also, no evidence that he shares in any of the Grammy award credit for an Andrae Crouch song. Fails WP:COMPOSER. Article definitely too much of an advert and not NPOV, and no value added by c/p from his own website. JCutter (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE : A simple search in the ASCAP ACE database would have verified Bakken as a composer of the TV series. Nelior. Please do your research properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelior70 (talk • contribs)
- Delete: trivial coverage, unverifiable claims, WP:COI, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Also worth noting: This page has been deleted five times previously for copyright violations, as well. The author now claims that the original copyright holder has given Wikimedia reprint permissions. —
Note : Deleted only because writer does not know how to respond within the difficult and arkaic Wiki system, but knew how to resubmit article. Nelior70.
Bdb484 (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Non-notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with nobody but the nominator arguing for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prodigal Sunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable rap musician. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Member of the notable rap group Sunz of Man as well as a solo artist. Could be merged into the group article but shouldn't be deleted. A Google search found these: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].--Michig (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Prodigal Sunn to Sunz of Man and delete Return of the Prodigal Sunn, the article for the rapper's sole album. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found by Michig. Kimchi.sg (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ocean Fracture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band. I would have speedied this except it has had a fair number of editors involved. However, I still can't see that it meets notability criteria. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the pages for the band's albums/singles: The Sunmachine And The Ocean and Cesarium/Black Lung Optimism. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the three items of press coverage quoted in The Sunmachine And The Ocean can be verified, then the band will likely pass WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately, none of the items CAN be verified by internet, as the first two sources (Rock Sound Magazine and Big Cheese Magazine) do not archive material online, and no results can be found at a search of Kerrang!. Unless someone has access to these actual magazine issues, the claims to notability of this article remain unverifiable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources already supplied in the article (and album article). No where in WP:RS or WP:V does it say that they have to be available online, only that they are reliable, third-party, and published. From WP:RS; "it is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You'll have to pardon my ignorance here, I'm fairly new to all this. Since the articles have been put up for deletion, I've inserted a few more relevant references into each, including national radio station playlists and (as per the previous editor's comment which states that references do not strictly require to be archived online) further issues of publications featuring relevant information. I don't know whether the previous editor's "keep" closes the debate or not, so if someone could be sympathetic to a Wikipedia newbie and let me know, I would appreciate it. :p Thanks. User:Verklemmt —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Taking the sources for The Sunmachine in good faith, we have coverage in some notable magazines (esp. Kerrang) for the album which establishes notability for the band, though perhaps weakly so. I'm staying on the safe side, the side of inclusion. Note to Verklemmt--no, it's not over yet; more editors can still weigh in. When you add sources to the article, make them look good by using templates and by looking for sources that editors have access to online. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As above Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 19:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Front Porch Country Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Drops a buttload of names, makes a few vague claims, but I found no reliable third party sources. Seems to fail WP:V, and by extension WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2004/0422/wh28-2.html is a source, but honestly this looks like a non-notable (and way over-hyped) band. The source shown would lead one to think the band is notable, but it all feels wrong. Certainly having trouble finding sources beyond that one. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage. The poor referencing in the article doesn't help matters. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Marz (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Poorly-written article on a rapper of very minor importance (was briefly a member of a notable group and signed to a notable label, but has done little else of significant importance). Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – The above user has been blocked for sockpuppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely non notable to the Nth degree. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has received plenty of coverage, and being poorly written is no reason for deletion. See, for example, this Goole News search, and these: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33].--Michig (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If being a member of a notable group doesn't make the artist themself notable, they'd still be a good choice to merge or redirect and poor writing isn't a deletion reason. In short: no valid reason for deletion was given. - Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Dark Lotus, a quick overview of Michig sources is associated with the famous band, not Marz himself, also NNE isn't a reliable source. Secret account 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's this 'NNE' then? If you mean NME, the content there is taken from The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, which is most certainly a WP:RS.--Michig (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even without that, I'm unsure why a nationally available music news magazine which has been published weekly for nearly 60 years isn't a RS. That's like saying Rolling Stone isn't a RS -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteThere's probably enough out there to satisfy notability criteria but no-one has put their hand up to work on the article. Hazir (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's enough out there to satisfy notability criteria, then the article should stay. Judge the subject, not the article.--Michig (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. The article is much improved btw, nice work. Hazir (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources mentioned by Michig only seem to be passing references. This doesn't look notable. Iam (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Sockpuppet of JamesBurns who already commented above. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. I have done some work on the article - perhaps those who have !voted delete would like to take another look. In addition to the sources already used in the article the Google News search above includes significant coverage in the Hartford Courant, Lancaster Newspapers, and Guitar Player.--Michig (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At least three Marz tracks have been included in major film soundtracks. This easily passess WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, established notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heaven and Earth (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
PROD was contested (actually, it was removed by an IP user with no explanations, too bad I can't simply add it back), so I'm taking it to AfD. This stub covers a band from the 1970s, which has released only one album. It is stated that a song by them was featured on several compilations, but I don't see it as a claim of notability. Victão Lopes I hear you... 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage of the band and the article makes no real assertion of notability.--Michig (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no significant coverage, non-notable band. JamesBurns (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC) This page should be brought back, I know of 5 people personally who would disagree that there's no cult following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.72.140 (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Raleigh Theodore Sakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not sure what this would fall under - WP:BAND? Being the "angry old man" on two records and there being a bootleg of his ranting don't seem of particular noteworthiness, especially since there are no sources that I can find and no fansites to establish any sort of cult following. The clothing line named after him is only available on a Wiki-blacklisted sell-your-own-designs website. Mbinebri talk ← 18:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete under WP:BAND, WP:A7, WP:BIO, WP:N...the list goes on and on. Just purge it with fire already...Cheers. I'mperator 23:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 23:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no significant coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a huge cult following! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.164.252 (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2011 (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.
I am interested in Sakers ever since i listened to sublime, but the article was deleted. I'd be much obliged if you could bring the page back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.77.36 (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2012 (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. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jodie Borle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not Notable, does not achieve [WP:Music]]. 1 GNews hit and (as far as I can see) only where's, when's and 'how to buy's' on the 1560 gHits. A award is mentioned, but I do not believe it reaches the WP:Music level. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 18:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Award was from the Winnipeg 99.1 Cool FM radio station (I believe, please correct me if I am wrong). Which was the prior branding of CJGV-FM. IF it still exists, it would no longer have that name I am sure. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 19:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 23:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability, totally unreferenced, and appears promotional with two links to her personal pages. JCutter (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failure to abide by WP:MUSIC and for being an obvious violation of WP:VSCA. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a myspace page and a own website dose not pass Wikipedia:NCheers Kyle1278 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disarrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Band that doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Speedy declined. Black Kite 20:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I declined the speedy but I agree that the group is probably not notable but I said I would give him time to "show us the money". He has 7 days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom+ron. Ironholds (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 23:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Just another non-notable myspace band. Possible speedy WP:CSD#A7, "band that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Musician with no evidence of notability and no third-party sources. Powers T 15:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 16:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no allmusic entry. None of his albums appear in anything of note on Google. No significant coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. "He is also a popular instructor and session musician". Wow. sparkl!sm hey! 08:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bankrrota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band with only demos recorded. Crashoffer12345 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I have some evidence that they've recorded more than demos. Ipatrol (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sadly. I just rewrote the article, hoping that it might turn out to be worthwhile but the group isn't at all notable. The link above is dated back to 2005 and the band have just recorded demos. WP:NLI seems to apply here as the band has an apparent fanbase in Medellín, but that by no means warrants an article on Wikipedia. Greg Tyler (t • c) 16:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no significant coverage or reliable sources. JamesBurns (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Emmanuel John Winner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
unreferenced, non notable, books are vanity press, music seems to fail WP:MUSIC, most likely vanity, previously deprodded ccwaters (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can't find any info about the publisher of his books, but several have been scanned by Google books and appear to be held in the collections of university libraries[34].
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 16:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 16:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Author is User:Ejwinner. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged, and for good reason. He was pointed to WP:AUTO days ago and chose to ignore the recommendations there, just as he's chosen to ignore numerous other policies in his edits to Rochester, New York. Powers T 14:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, several types of searches on several variants of his name reveal no notability whatsoever. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to The Shys. MBisanz talk 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alex Kweskin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable keyboard player. Articles makes no assertion to notability. No awards. Member of a garage band that's released two album which have no history of having charted JamesBurns (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 12:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant independent coverage, fails WP:MUSICBIO. TheClashFan (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Indef-blocked sockpuppet of nominator. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete fails WP:MUSIC, someone should nominate The Shys for deletion. Secret account 22:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Shys, as per WP:MUSIC, as there is no evidence of notability of the individual musician separate from the band. (The Shys actually do meet the general notability guideline, with coverage in a variety of North American newspapers, although the sources have not yet been added to the article.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge whatever is appropriate. The band isn't just a garage band. They're signed to a notable label and released two albums (which meets WP:MUSIC). Bands don't have to have charting hits to be notable, it's just one of the many possible criteria that can be used. - Mgm|(talk) 09:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Iam (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Indef-blocked sockpuppet of nominator. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete — Neither the musician or band seem to be notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- And yet, as I said above, the band The Shys has received coverage in multiple sources. Examples include:
- Swegles, Fred (Aug. 15, 2006). "San Clemente band returns on Fiesta with fame", The Orange County Register.
- Bracelin, Jason (Nov. 21, 2008). "The Shys are anything but", Las Vegas Review-Journal, p. J12.
- Miller, Jay N. (Dec. 29, 2006). "Our critics look back at the year's best movies and music", The Patriot Ledger, p. 17.
- Hogan, Ray (July 27, 2006). "Album review: The Shys", The Advocate, p. 19.
- and so on. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet, as I said above, the band The Shys has received coverage in multiple sources. Examples include:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Duncan Stuart Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I declined a speedy deletion request on this because I think there's a good faith claim of importance here. However, notability is unclear to me, and I really don't know if this should be deleted, merged to one of the bands, or left for improvement. Gsearch found this and this, but there's a lot of noise in the signal caused by a controversial blogger of the same name. Thoughts? Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage, possible self-promotion, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The only real claims of notability are for the band "3Faced", and I doubt very much if they'd pass WP:BAND even if the claims were sourced. The "Southern California Music Awards" appear to be a one-off event from 2006, and the sales figures aren't that impressive. Supporting a major act doesn't convey notability - and, again, we have no sources for this (or any other) claim. Tevildo (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated before notability is not inherited, due to not sufficient sourcing of the notability this article will not pass delete Neozoon 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rama Claproth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
MySpace artist. Does not appear to have recorded and released anything of note, nor been a member of a notable band. No awards or charts. JamesBurns (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete USA Google does not return any significant results, and no WP:RS are provided. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources, no significant coverage. TheClashFan (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Myspace pages are not independent, third-party, verifiable sources. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: This person gets two Google News hits, but they're in Bahasa Indonesia, which I can't read. I've run them through Google Translate, which suggests they're fairly trivial: one is a short piece predominantly about Claproth's father and mentions Rama only in passing, the other is a photo gallery about the band in which Claproth plays. (Though there're purportedly 3 matches related to that second item, they're actually all identical.) I don't think this is enough to constitute significant coverage in multiple sources, and therefore to establish notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We Are The Emergency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC. Lack of reliable third party sources, unsigned, has only released EPs. Frozenguild (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Without references to support the radio interview assertions, or the references for the non specific music magazine in Perth, the remaining sources do not meet WP:BAND. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources to back up the claims. Just another Myspace band at the moment. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mirrorball (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notifiable band. Cannot find any references for it. From the article it seems like it was a band formed at school that split up when they went to university. Quantpole (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - band that formed, jammed, played a bunch of low-key gigs, recorded a demo, then split up, just like 2357345873894573845 bands before and since. Band members probably had a lot of good times but sadly the band is not notable at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Oh Chris, it was 2357345873894573846 bands before :-) Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Say, you two, please consider WP:CIVIL. I was in two of those bands, and this is no laughing matter--we could have made it big.<sigh> Drmies (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BAND. ChrisTheDude says it all. JohnCD (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Non-notable band. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Saint John and the Revelations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band. No allmusic entry. Two releases only available via internet, both on self-published label. No awards or charts. JamesBurns (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant independent coverage, fails WP:BAND. TheClashFan (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of the nominator. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable band without any independent sources, as such it fails WP:BAND. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – The nominator has been indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, it goes without saying that the sockpuppetry case againt the nominator should not affect the outcome of this discussion. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, would not seem to meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Hello. I apologize, I don't understand the formatting on this page, so excuse this weird entry. My name is Amanda and I have been updating the Saint John and the Revelations page. I work for a PR firm that is now handling the band. Although I work for PR, I have endeavored to just keep this page fact based in the WikiPedia tradition. The article is here so people who are interested in the band can find more details about them without the fluff that people like myself usually have to write. I will in no way, shape, or form, use any hyperbole on it. Only facts.
- The band is not signed to a label, nor will they probably ever be (the record labels are not good for making money right now), and because of that they will never chart either. They do however have hundreds of thousands of fans all around the world, and they are about to gain a lot more. They have just signed deals to have their music put into two major network TV shows, the HBO show Entourage, and are also getting picked up by dozens of radio stations every day, especially after being featured on KCRW.
- They have been featured in music print publications in Canada, and will soon be featured more in the U.S., their new base of operation. We are trying to dig up links, but are unsure if they are online.
- Please let me know if there is anything I can do to change the entry to avoid deletion, I really have tried to just keep it focused on facts and not some fluff fan/vanity page. If you have any doubts as to their notability, please look them up online and/or visit their MySpace profile, They have a lot more comments and fans there than many signed/charted acts. They have hundreds of thousands of fans that think the band are truly notable, the music industry and charts just haven't caught up with a way of tracking completely independent artists that are doing very well.
- Thank you. Amanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.106.253 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hullo Amanda. Unfortunately Wikipedia also has not come up with a way of dealing with completely independent artists that are doing very well, outside of the criteria listed at WP:BAND. Wikipedia's version of "notable" depends on these, rather than popularity or number of fans. As you can see, probably the most sure-fire chance of inclusion lies with non-trivial pieces on the artist, in reliable sources independent of the artist. They don't have to be online, but it does look like this band is not yet "notable" enough by Wikipedia standards for inclusion at this time. 86.44.45.98 (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, actually, this might be ok then. We are getting copies of regional and national Canadian music magazines that have mentioned the band, and I'll be able to cite from those. I should have a couple of them within a week. I misunderstood what I could cite and thought I could only cite linkable articles, I'm still learning more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -Amanda
- Delete as not satisfying notability criteria. WP:USERFY to User:76.90.106.253 on request to allow Amanda time to find resources and build the article. If after a month the article is still not acceptable remove from the User:76.90.106.253 subpage. SilkTork *YES! 08:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep without prejudice to an earlier-than-usual re-nomination, if necessary. Basically per SilkTork above, except that since there is a good faith assertion here that adequate sourcing exists, i do not see why the article should not remain in article space and be improved in the usual way. It's also the least confusing option for a new editor, and the most convenient way other editors can look at the sourcing going forward. 86.44.34.151 (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Victor Zinchuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page seems nothing more than an advertisement with out any claim of notability. It was probably created by the artist himself. Justinmeister (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article doesn't appear to have improved since the last AfD. I went and looked for sources myself, and found nothing other than the artist's own website and a Youtube video. BecauseWhy? (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious indeed. His presence on the TV rivals that of Viagra and Levitra combined but reliable bio sources in Russian are as scarce as in English. NVO (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage, possible self-promotion, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm more than a little hesitant over deleting articles which rely on non-English sources: they may, in fact, be entirely reliable & clearly notable outside of our own limited knowledge. I noticed that this person had an article on ru.wikipedia, so while I know no Russian I still decided to see what that might tell me. (Also, I made use of Babelfish.) First off, the article was not based on the en.wikipedia one, which is a good sign. However, the paragraphs I selected at random don't give me much confidence: the article sounds almost as if Zinchuk's publicist wrote it. The lead paragraph describes him as "an associated professor of the international Academy of Sciences of the Republic of San Marino, docent at Moscow State University" & having made arrangements of classical works by "I. S. Bach, N. Paganini, M. Glinki, G. Verdi, G. Gershwin" (George Gershwin was a classical composer?) I'd like someone who is fluent in Russian &/or familiar with the ways of ru.wikipedia to provide a report on that article before we decide to delete this one. -- llywrch (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That may be referring to Rhapsody In Blue, which is technically not classical, but is an orchestral piece and so is frequently lumped in there. — Gwalla | Talk 22:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 06:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of R&B musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
One of those unsourced lists that is better served as a category, half of these artists aren't even R&B, Delete Secret account 22:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unmaintainable, unreferenced WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per, WP:Fancruft: "use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." See also WP:Cruftcruft: "[The definition cruft] complete and utter lack of any objective criteria leaves "cruft" in the eye of the beholder. Rather than being anything meaningfully nonencyclopedic, Cruft becomes any topic, subject or article that the beholder is uninterested in." Surely you have a more civil and more objective argument against this article? Ikip (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Perhaps you need to read what I wrote again. I never used the term fancruft (I note User:EsradekanGibbs has used "fancruft" in a number of article deletions which doesn't seem to bother you when he does otherwise you would have left comments). I used Listcruft which wikipedia defines as "indiscriminate or trivial lists", which is exactly what this list is. And I note many other editors below have also used that term, so I don't buy your uncivil claim. JamesBurns (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per, WP:Fancruft: "use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." See also WP:Cruftcruft: "[The definition cruft] complete and utter lack of any objective criteria leaves "cruft" in the eye of the beholder. Rather than being anything meaningfully nonencyclopedic, Cruft becomes any topic, subject or article that the beholder is uninterested in." Surely you have a more civil and more objective argument against this article? Ikip (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - The Articles hold the sources. non-R&B's sould be Edited out. if this is WP:LISTCRUFT the everything in Category:Lists of musicians by genre would also be, and I dont believe that for a second. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because lists and categories are complementary and should not be deleted in favor of the other. If "half of these artists" are not R&B, that means that half of them are; the answer then is to edit, not to delete the whole thing. "Unsourced" is not a reason to delete especially when the articles for the artists themselves ought to contain references which confirm whether they are R&B musicians or not. List of electric blues musicians is a good example of what a list can become with proper care; on the other hand List of hip hop musicians is what can happen when a list is abandoned in favor of a category. Really, which of these makes Wikipedia more informative? DHowell (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this list is better served as a category, it's unwieldly long and poorly maintained. A-Kartoffel (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is a case where a category is appropriate and a list is not. WP:LISTCRUFT doesn't apply to categories, which are not articles in the mainspace, but it certainly applies here. Per WP:STAND, lists like this need to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This list fails WP:V as sources aren't present that show that these people are indeed R&B musicians. It is also nothing but a directory listing of information as it is only a laundry list without any further discussion or information about the participants. How are they R&B musicians, where does it claim that they are? Also, per the nom, this list is pretty indiscriminate as there is no working definition of "R&B" that applies here. The category works wonderfully, the list doesn't. ThemFromSpace 18:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Whilst this category is good for tree organisation, I can see the appeal of a full list of R&B musicians. I believe it could be a useful list and is in fairly good nick. Greg Tyler (t • c) 22:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, indiscriminate laundry list that has no verifiable sources. TheClashFan (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pattont/c 13:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Per DHowell. If half of the list is not R&B (if this claim is correct) that is a clean up issue, not a deletion issue. I do like the nominator's suggestion of making this list a category. As is unfortunatly the norm in 99% of AFDs, I am troubled that the nominator never attempted, WP:PRESERVE or WP:BEFORE before nominating this article for deletion. I suggest that if this article is kept, the closing admin suggest that the community go back and attempts to do the work to make this article a category, instead of deleting the entire article outright, as is being attempted here. Ikip (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRESERVE isn't policy, and also the category does exist, Category:American rhythm and blues singers is an example, it's just categorized mainly by nationality, like most musician categories nowadays. Secret account 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ummmm WP:PRESERVE ~is~ official English Wikipedia policy. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As with "List of country songs", it's a useless list that is no improvement over a category. While it may have served a naviagational purpose six years ago, Wikipedia has become more searchable since then. Mandsford (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:V no sources present to verify R&B musicians. Better off as a category. JoannaMinogue (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is exactly the purpose of lists, which are intended to co-exist with categories in synergistic fashion per WP:CLN. That sources should be added is a given, but the improvements required are rather simple. Above and beyond all reasons for retention, any AfD where any form of the word "cruft" is used as an excuse for deletion should be kept automatically. Alansohn (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all lists should accompany all categories. Per WP:STAND, stand-alone lists have to abide by the same criteria as the rest of our articles. Having a category doesn't mean we get the go-ahead to have a list on the same subject. Categories and lists may work well together, and having one isn't a reason to delete the other, but having one isn't a reason to have the other either. Also, cruft isn't a bad word when linked to an essay that explains exactly what it means in the terms that its used. If you'd look over WP:LISTCRUFT you'll find that it makes a lot of good points and isn't just a blanket "idontlikeit". ThemFromSpace 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete cat is better; this is unmaintainable and inaccurate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Normally we have a list for every category of this sort. We do not need to choose which is better. If there is justification for putting a name in a category, it also justifies it for the list. Individual cases are discussed on individual talk pages. DGG (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an indiscriminate unmaintainable list. You don't need and can't have an all inclusive list for every grouping of people of this type. Lists of musicians by genre are impossible to properly maintain as their content group is essentially unlimmited. Spiesr (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete indiscriminate unmaintainable list. Iam (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TGT (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This group does not have any independent notability, and their album was never released. Normally I would merge it instead, but I wouldn't know whether to merge it to the Ginuwine, Tank or Tyrese article. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no reliable coverage. A-Kartoffel (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the group not having released an album, they received a fair amount of media coverage, including entire articles about the trio in the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Sentinel, and Jet. I've added six references just now. The article's subject meets the general notability guideline, or WP:BAND criterion #1, so I suggest keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a little better, but are any of those sources verifiable? I mean, they do all claim to come from magazines and newspapers that are years old and whose issues don't appear to be accessible via the internet. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not available via the Internet. To "verify" them, one might have to resort to other means. :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Which once again points to WP:V. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I might be missing your point...? Sources do not have to be on the Internet to be considered appropriate reliable sources according to WP:V. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would certainly help though. JamesBurns (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With some more careful searching, I was able to find a few links to articles and have now added them. If either of you has questions about the Sentinel article, please let me know and I can look it up in my library's database again. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I withdraw the nomination. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I might be missing your point...? Sources do not have to be on the Internet to be considered appropriate reliable sources according to WP:V. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Which once again points to WP:V. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not available via the Internet. To "verify" them, one might have to resort to other means. :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a little better, but are any of those sources verifiable? I mean, they do all claim to come from magazines and newspapers that are years old and whose issues don't appear to be accessible via the internet. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tarkio (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No references, fails WP:MUSIC Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- or redirect/merge with The Decemberists. Dlabtot (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, one rated review at Allmusic; [35], and another at Pitchfork Media; [36] for the album Omnibus means it meets WP:MUSIC#C1 for multiple non-trivial published works. While I will be the first to agree that Colin Meloy is better known for his work with The Decemberists, I reckon there is enough to warrant a stand alone article. If the commumitty doesn't agree I then reckon add the ref's from above, and merge the lot into the Colin Meloy#Musical career section. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe those sources are valid for establishing notability. Dlabtot (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? Allmusic & Pitchfork are considered as credible published materials, with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the context of music. Both are written by staff writers, and are therefore independent of the subject. The subject is completely about the band or their works, and thus isn't trivial. There are 2 of them, and thus multiple mentions. To me that is the exact definition of WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been extensive discussions of allmusic at WP:RSN. I do consider them a fairly reliable source for information, but they are not a traditional source that publishes only about notable musicians or recordings. They do indeed strive to cover ALL MUSIC, and therefore an appearance there is not an indication of notability. My opinion of pitchfork is not as well informed so I will leave that discussion to others. Dlabtot (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so, (re. the discussions aboot Allmusic), but until such time as people stop talking about it, and actually do something, Allmusic still stands as a reliable source per Wikipedia:Music#Resources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pitchfork Media is pretty much the grand poobah of indie music journalism. Additionally, Metacritic [37] indicates a review from Spin, but I don't know if it's substantial or just a mini-blurb of a review. Poechalkdust (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been extensive discussions of allmusic at WP:RSN. I do consider them a fairly reliable source for information, but they are not a traditional source that publishes only about notable musicians or recordings. They do indeed strive to cover ALL MUSIC, and therefore an appearance there is not an indication of notability. My opinion of pitchfork is not as well informed so I will leave that discussion to others. Dlabtot (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? Allmusic & Pitchfork are considered as credible published materials, with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the context of music. Both are written by staff writers, and are therefore independent of the subject. The subject is completely about the band or their works, and thus isn't trivial. There are 2 of them, and thus multiple mentions. To me that is the exact definition of WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Really quite notable, with plenty of coverage if one digs deep enough, ranging from substantial coverage to briefer mentions - plenty to allow a decently-sourced article: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]--Michig (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those mostly aren'tNone of those links are coverage of the band Tarkio, they are reviews of the retrospective Omnibus. There were a lot of reviews of Omnibus, and it is true that a fraction of them were published in reliable sources. However, a careful examination of those reviews will support the notion that Tarkio's only claim to notability is the fact that the frontman went on to greater success with The Decemberists. Dlabtot (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- With all due respect, reviews of a band's work are coverage of the band, and the band has sufficient claim to notability as they have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC is satisfied by the coverage and the Decembrists link also passes criterion 6. The information in the article could be merged into Colin Meloy, but there is probably enough to be said about the band to make a separate article justified. A discussion of whether the content should be merged is a separate matter to whether it should be deleted. Merge or not, the subject of the article is sufficiently encyclopedic to be included here.--Michig (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2009 (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.
Bands & musicians Proposed deletions
To check articles which are being proposed for deletion search by date at Category:Proposed deletion or see the summary of PRODs at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. It is common to bands and musicians of all kinds listed.
- Cause The Product (via WP:PROD on 15 June 2008)
Bands and musicians Templates for deletion
- Template:Editors bandEditors band – Editors band ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Categories
Category:Folk musical instruments has been nominated for merging into Category:Musical instruments by nationality. Cgingold (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]