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.
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 delete. Closed early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Like a Whale
- Very Like a Whale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band. Outside of an article in a college newspaper, there is no independent media confirmation of the band's notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Doesn't meet general notability or the notability criteria for bands. One local ref doesn't establish either. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--utterly fails WP:Music. A MySpace band. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per CSD G7. The only author has blanked the article, indicating an author request speedy deletion. Given that, and the concerns above, this should be speedied. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails our criteria for notability or WP:BAND. tempodivalse [☎] 14:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Great band name though. sparkl!sm hey! 08:12, 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 speedy delete as G3. SoWhy 19:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mickub
- Mickub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article makes claims about the subject which are not confirmed by a Google or Google News search. I am bringing this to AfD to get second opinion confirmation that the article fails WP:BIO and might be a hoax. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax--Ice Cube's buddy? sold 10 million copies? and not a single hit on Google News? Drmies (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a blatant hoax. Might have had a shot at fooling someone if they hadn't made outrageous claims. Founder member of NWA and sold 10 million albums? Okayyyyyyyyy. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as being unverifiable, and no mention in any reliable sources. Probable hoax. tempodivalse [☎] 14:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 as blatant misinformation, fails the common sense test. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 19:05, 11 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. Most of the "keep" arguments seem to be based on WP:ILIKEIT. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Themis (Band)
- Themis Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable music group. Extensive references refer to the Wiccan religion, not to the Themis group itself. Related article deleted through separate deletion discussion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of this article has to do with the religion having a public entity advancing its beliefs. This is new for Wicca. Maybe I have titled the article wrongly. People keep bashing this issue around but the debate has centred on a musical band and not the fact that there is a music project done by some Wicca priests which significantly advances the concept of Wicca and gives Wicca greater notability and acceptance. We are talking about a religion wherein women who practiced homeopathy and herbal remedies were burned at the stake. Today a musical ensemble promotes Wicca openly for what it is: a nature based pagan religion. That's notable. There are no Wiccan Churches, Popes, Annual General Meetings; Ecclesiastical Conferences but there is a Music Band that promotes Wicca openly, widely, and in many different ways. Katie alsop (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Katie alsop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
- Comment Actually, there are any number of public entities promoting Wicca and other new age pagan and naturistic belief systems, as this list demonstrates. The fact that this band openly espouses this religion does NOT make them notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I think I can't let you away with that. ;-) I checked your reference and accordingly there has been nothing in the last decade and mostly nothing in the past century that as you say are "[any number of public entities] promoting Wicca" and The fact that this band openly espouses this religion does NOT make them notable. -- it DOES make them notable to a Wiccan or a person who studies or just follows evolving religions. I think the band is notable regardless. Anyway, thanks very much for your input. Katie alsop (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability
I have added some references. Themis is Opening the Canadian Spirit of The Earth Festival and the Canadian Woodstock Festival in 2009 and I have added at least one link in that regard. These are very big Canadian National events. I think it is notable that a Wicca Rock band is good enough that it has been chosen for a Rock For Sick Kids Benefit and CD (March 8 performance, release date May 8); Woodstock 2009 (July 31 to August 2); and The Canadian Spirits of The Earth Festival July 7 through 12), the former two being exclusively Rock events and the latter being a Pagan festival.
The noteworthyness of this article has to do with the fact that it tells of a musical group which are the most outspoken public leadership entities for a modern, recently popular religion: a sort of pied piper in a gypsy vein. It will never be a huge commercial success: there aren't that many Wiccans in the world and most Wiccans seem to keep their religion a secret.
Wicca is heretofore a silent, individual and underground religion. In most religions the obviously visible aspect is a person (i.e.: a pope or evangelist), a church building or some other traditional centre point of a religion. This article talks about an emergence of an energetic, boisterous msuic that focuses on teaching the simpler points about Wicca.
Also the article speaks of a 'leader' that takes the religion in a somewhat new direction but along the lines of its most popular threads like: ecology; uncomplicated worship; eclectic choices; non-patriarchal (statistics indicate 70% female 30% male membership) aspects; and its more modern theology. I like it for its slant toward what is really ecofeminism and would like to see more of that aspect in the article as well.
I am going to try to do a little ( more and better ) work on this in the coming week. Cheers Katie alsop (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep
Another factor I just noticed on the notability question is that in 2009, in addition to being on the slate for two major Canadian national music events (Canadian Woodstock Festival and Canadian Spirit of the Earth Festival) Themis is also in the on-air rotation of Sirius Satellite on channel 86. Katie alsop (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep *I just read the discussion page on "Themis Music" that WikiDan61 referred to and that looks to me to be a "Keep" in conclusion. Notwithstanding the ambiguity on that discussion page, since Katie alsop has adduced new information for 2009 inasmuch as the band is notable as a participant in two major national concerts (in Canada) and is on the playlist of a significant radio station (CBC on satelite radio) the reliable sources are ok and the WP:MUSIC criteria are satisfied three times over in 2009, the new information allows KEEP Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
- I wonder if Nymphetamine labyrinth would mind editing the page to add the reference on Sat Radio. I don't know the syntax for doing that. Thanks Katie alsop (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk · contribs) has already tried to add a page on this topic previously (as deduced from the history of User Talk:Nymphetamine labyrinth). I smell a sock. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The debate about this page goes back well over a year. All I am saying here is that in a year, things have changed notably and the band has become notable whereas according to Wikipedia it may not have been a year ago. If the Themis band's success continues, it will eventually become notable within one ore more of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Question: has that time come? I say yes, perhaps it has. If you disagree, say so specifically, but your calling people names adds nothing. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk · contribs) has already tried to add a page on this topic previously (as deduced from the history of User Talk:Nymphetamine labyrinth). I smell a sock. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if Nymphetamine labyrinth would mind editing the page to add the reference on Sat Radio. I don't know the syntax for doing that. Thanks Katie alsop (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I also am in favour of keeping this page on Wikipedia. I agree with a lot of the arguments already presented which share my view, so I won;t be redundant. I am not seeing any good arguments for deleting.. maybe instead of negativity we can all put our heads together. Those who have issues, bring them forward and let's all contribute to making it better. I think this is what Wikipedia is all about. Portrait of the Dead Countess (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Portrait of the Dead Countess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- CHALLENGE - CONFLICT OF INTEREST - A quick look at Portrait of the Dead Countess's user page history (particularly, her first version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Portrait_of_the_Dead_Countess&oldid=205438713 shows that she is a member of this band. A vote on the notability of this article is clearly a conflict of interest.Taniwha (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Portrait of the Dead Countess (talk · contribs) was also involved in the previous AfD debate for this article. As at the previous discussion, the arguments to keep the article were more based on the supposed notability of a Wiccan band based on the popularity of Wicca itself rather than the ACTUAL notability of THIS band as demonstrated by the criteria of WP:MUSIC. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "based on the popularity of Wicca itself" ?? This religion, Wicca, my religion, is uncommon enough to be passed over by most, and common enough to scare the proverbial "Hell" out of those who fear any change (and have such a thing as "Hell" to be scared out of.) Wiccans are everywhere, and if the idea of a non-Christian babysitter or doctor frightens you, then be frightened. If the notability of a band has to do with it's message, so be it. In this case however, the notability is hinged upon its participation in a couple of national concerts in '09 and its inclusion on significant radio play lists. Maybe not exclusive, Themis is notable on its own irrespective of its message ideology. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please do not make this discussion an argument over Wicca. Wicca does not scare me, nor should it scare anyone who has an understanding beyond simple superstitions. However, this discussion is about the notability of THIS particular band, which has not been demonstrated. The "major" music festival of which mention has been made (Canadian Woodstock) consists of a collection of unknown bands playing 20 minute sets over the course of a weekend. The event's own website describes it as "Canadian Bands that are up and coming talents that need to be recognized" -- i.e. not yet notable. The event MAY be notable, but each of its individual participants is not necessarily so. Of the 38 signed acts, only one (Basia Lyjak) has a Wikipedia page, and that one is of doubtful notability itself. The fact is there is not a single reference on the Themis page that asserts the notability of this band to the standards of WP:MUSIC. Most of the references are primary sources, from the band's own website, or are unrelated references about the Wiccan religion, not about the band itself. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "based on the popularity of Wicca itself" ?? This religion, Wicca, my religion, is uncommon enough to be passed over by most, and common enough to scare the proverbial "Hell" out of those who fear any change (and have such a thing as "Hell" to be scared out of.) Wiccans are everywhere, and if the idea of a non-Christian babysitter or doctor frightens you, then be frightened. If the notability of a band has to do with it's message, so be it. In this case however, the notability is hinged upon its participation in a couple of national concerts in '09 and its inclusion on significant radio play lists. Maybe not exclusive, Themis is notable on its own irrespective of its message ideology. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I remember working on and discussing a similar article. Notability has now nudged over on the plus side. But the article needs work. Bean Mouse 02:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can you say specifically which elements of the article are properly referenced (or could be properly referenced) and indicate notability? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I humbly suggest that the users involved in this discussion may not be entirely neutral on the topic. mobrien9279 (talk · contribs), Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk · contribs) and Portrait of the Dead Countess (talk · contribs) have all been extensively involved in articles about Wicca music and Themis music which have all attempted to promote this band. Mobrien9279 and Portrait... also claim a direct relationship with the band Themis, by claiming ownership of the Themis logo. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I am Wiccan. I have a bias and interest in anything Wicca and cannot be considered neutral on matters Wicca. I have my own beliefs which may differ from even other Wiccans so if religious neutrality is necessary to be involved in Wikipedia I must bow out. Sorry. I did not know. Here in Sweden the students I am with don't usually consider such things but just go ahead and write freely what we think from our own personal perspectives. What was I thinking? :-) Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neutrality is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Articles are expected to be fair and neutral. That is not to say that articles about Wicca should be eliminated, for surely Wicca is a notable religious movement. And if there is a Wiccan music tradition building, similar to the Christian music tradition, and if this tradition has reached a point of notability (as demonstrated in reliable sources) then it should be written about. HOWEVER, this discussion is NOT about Wicca, and it is NOT about Wiccan music. It is about a single band, and that single band has NOT reached the level of notability that would rate a Wikipedia article. I ask you all to PLEASE not make this a discussion about Wicca, but ONLY about a single band. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The article is fair and neutral. The band is notable having satisfied at least three of the conditions set out in the WP:MUSIC criteria and still rises above that for other reasosns as well. The band is new (2007) but a rising star. I submit that the WP:MUSIC has been met whereas at the time of a previous article it might not have been at the level of WP:MUSIC.
- Regarding PLEASE not make this a discussion about Wicca, I can agree with that except to say that because the band is a Wiccan band and the discussion and article attracted attention from Wiccans from at least three countries, the common thread being people interested in things Wicca, the topic will come up. Anyway, if the result is delete, I will put the article on hold and come back again another day as the band becomes more and more "notable". That has happened already once. Some of the authors of the first article supported my attempt. So what? Themis says it is an "Underground Wicca Rock Band" and some people wish it had more "mainstream" visibilty. That visibility and achievement is happening. WP:MUSIC is met! Cheers (and thanks for the input WikiDan61. Katie alsop (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete No claim of notability made or possible. Fails WP:MUSIC comprehensively. Band has yet to release a single album on a notable label, no significant coverage whatsoever in reliable third-party media. Article has been repeatedly deleted and recreated by sole-purpose users. In fact, I was under the impression that it had been salted, though am happy to admit if I was wrong. In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that I have been party to previous AfDs concerning this article and received this response. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I dare say 'speedy delete' (criterion A7) doesn't apply and your suggestion contradicts a process underway. There is a justified claim of significance with apparent reason. Also I checked WP:MUSIC and see several areas of notability. I agree that they are marginal but it doesn't 'fail'. Also please note that the failure to meet any of the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors. Katie alsop (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Apologies for any confusion. The speedy suggestion was not for criterion A7 but for criterion G4, as the material is almost exclusively recreated, previously deleted material; specifically material that has been deleted on multiple occasions in the past. Further up this discussion it has been claimed that in the past year the band has become notable, according to WP:MUSIC standards. This is untrue. The band is not signed. They have yet to release a single record. They have, like many Myspace bands, played some gigs, but none of them have received any significant coverage in independent, third-party sources. They claim to be playing at two major Canadian musical festivals; neither of these events is in fact a major musical event, and as the events have not even happened yet, claiming notability on this front would contravene WP:CRYSTAL even if they were sufficiently notable events. Further to this (and I want to stress that I am assuming good faith), I believe that it is important that at least two of the above posters (and heavy contributors to the article in question) are members of the band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only Portrait of the Dead Countess is a member of the band Themis.Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More on Blackmetalbaz's raising the (Blackmetalbaz vs this person) emotional exchange That's more passion than I can summon up for this debate. I imagine the precursor emotional exchanges to this were quite lively and I can't believe that there was none of the same ilk in the exchange from both sides. Religion does evoke strong feelings. Calm down.
- I believe that this article's subject is NOW worthy of Wikipedia note even if it wasn't previously. If it isn't now, current trends considered, it will be. I'll be back, or somebody else will. I don't think the argument "we deleted it before so we should delete it again" is valid. Let's came back to this after the holidays. Happy days of Pesach; Happy Easter and blessed be -Katie. Katie alsop (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whilst AfD is not really the place to discuss personal Wikipedia grievances, I would just like to state for the record that in fact the above comment was not provoked in any way by something I had said to the anon IP. There were no emotional exchanges to the best of my (and the archives') recollection, although if I have said anything rude or inappropriate I apologise unreservedly; feel free to point any out. This is not a religious issue; it is purely about the WP:MUSIC notability of Themis. I would also like to voice a concern about the phrase "I'll be back, or somebody else will." Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I read that too. Don't be concerned. Katie is not "The Terminator". Many articles that are initially deleted on Wikipedia come back as better ones. That's how I read it. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fear not, I do not believe that Katie is The Terminator. It is more a concern that this page is going to get recreated and recreated, despite the fact that they are not even signed, until someone actually re-salts it. As I said earlier, I thought this had already been done. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "I'll be back or someone else will"--I think that refers to socks. I have the feeling that the waters of this AfD are intentionally muddied by all-too lengthy expostulations on religion and accusations of intolerance. Alsop, you told an editor to "calm down" and "proved" their excited state by some diatribe someone else addressed to that editor. That is a classic example of blaming the victim. Some idiot yells an insult, and the person who is insulted must have done something wrong to set that off? Come on. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete This was deleted before as Themis_music and is hardly more important or notable now. Taniwha (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifics Please and is hardly more important or notable now. Why is the new information not notable. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The addition of a few gigs doesn't really make this band more notable. A few singles and self-release albums also do not make this band notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Their choice of religion does not make them notable enough for an article, either, I'm sorry.
- Comment - I moved the page to Themis (Band) per WP:Name. I'll vote later. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a tough one. I am tempted to say keep, due to it being a pagan band, however, The article is POV. After a brief look over WP:BAND, the article does not appear to meet the standard, however it is well sourced, and makes a case for possible noteability. I would like to see it stay, but I will leave it for other editors to make their votes.
- Keep Is this band notable? Nothing else matters. I would say yes. They exist, they have recorded, they are main-staging at significant festivals. As a band, that's enough to make them adequately WP:N. Rename to Themis (band) though, just to meet WP:MOS. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With respect to the above editor, their logic is flawed. Point A: please read WP:EXISTENCE. Point B: having recorded in and of itself does not pass WP:MUSIC; the criterion is multiple albums on a notable label, which Themis have clearly not managed. Point C: the festivals in question are not significant per WP:N themselves, and aside from this the band has yet to play at them. If they get coverage in, say, a Canadian national newspaper, a book or even a commercially published music magazine, recreate the article post-festival. If they're not covered, they're back to what they have now, which is effectively squat as far as Wikipedia notability guidelines go. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC is just plain wrong and needs changing: it emphasises recording on major labels above all else, and is biased against bands from non-mainstream genres (this is a problem across all of music, not just for Wicca). It also fails to take any account of the festival scene, where some highly notable bands that are regulars at niche-market festivals for years get deleted from Wikipedia because they don't get chart placement or radio play on Clearchannel stations. As to Themis, the events they've played so far, the coverage they've received (and has been noted on WP) does seem to achieve adequate WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to defend the music policy, but at issue here is verifiability. These festivals are not really the big time. Canadian Woodstock--I counted some sixty bands playing? for 20 minutes each? And the other festival strikes me as fairly small also. BTW, is this not Crystal Ballery, attempting to derive notability from future events? My main question to you is, however, what coverage? In reliable sources, please. Like a newspaper or a magazine, something not written by the Themisters themselves. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC is just plain wrong and needs changing: it emphasises recording on major labels above all else, and is biased against bands from non-mainstream genres (this is a problem across all of music, not just for Wicca). It also fails to take any account of the festival scene, where some highly notable bands that are regulars at niche-market festivals for years get deleted from Wikipedia because they don't get chart placement or radio play on Clearchannel stations. As to Themis, the events they've played so far, the coverage they've received (and has been noted on WP) does seem to achieve adequate WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G4. This material is no different from the previously deleted version, but for the fact that it has a different picture. The sources do not address the notability of the band, except for the 'sources' published by the band itself. Strip the references that talk about Wicca or about the Safe house, and all you have left is material submitted by the band itself of by sympathizers. I mean, look at the opening of the paragraph "Inspiring a new genre," which opens with the weasel claim "The music of Themis has been described[6] as a genre influenced by Wicca: Wicca Rock." And who has described it as such? The nameless contributor of a Canadian Webradio station whose editorial standards seem to be non-existent. Have they toured in significant ways? No. Have they released a record on a notable label? No. Have they even had the local newspaper write an article about them? No. What they do have are editors who stick more feathers in this peacock than I've seen in some of the worst BLPs that have come up here at AfD. Passing admin, please check the record and delete this article. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DrmiesTags: Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. so I ask please could you within the article pick a paragraph or two and re-write them the way you feel they should read JUST SO I KNOW. Many Thanks Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I didn't tag anything. Either way, even if I had, that's not necessarily my job. I don't think rewriting anything will make this notable, though it might make it less puffy. Rewriting should start with cutting--no matter how fast Wicca is growing, it doesn't help this band's notability. For a nice objective article on a band, see Sepultura, for instance. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a G4, clearly. We shouldn't be here. On the merits? Non-notable bands, from bubblegum pop to polka to straight edge to whatever this is try to promote themselves on wikipedia every day. And all of them should be deleted until they can pass the very low notability threshold.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while I found the article interesting, it is a synthetic, POV essay about a band that does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. LadyofShalott Weave 03:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott Weave 03:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott Weave 03:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott Weave 03:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I am unable to find any Google references for this use of Themis, despite trying to restrict searches to Wicca-related instances. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no reliable independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 07:44, 11 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
- 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[1].
- 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
- 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
- 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 Withdrawn This one was kind of on the fence, but given how close they are to releasing their single I'll just give it the benefit of the doubt. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kate & Kacey Coppola
- Kate & Kacey Coppola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Just barely avoids a G4 now that they have an (apparently digital-only) EP out on a notable label. However, I still think that they're a little bit short of notability, as they haven't really been covered in any sources independently of Can You Duet, their single hasn't charted yet, etc. etc. Close but no guitar. [sic] Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 00:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 00:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - non-trivial coverage includes Country Weekly ("artists to watch in 2009") and People Magazine’s Country Special. They performed the National Anthem at the Daytona International Speedway on February 14 and will perform it again at the Phoenix Cup Race, on April 18. More can be found if you take the following links as a starting point: [2] [3] [4], plus propaganda: [5] Probably enough to write a good article out of. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - signed to a notable label, have released an EP, and are two weeks away from rel their debut single ... they're about on par w/ Caitlin & Will right now (who also has only a single and an EP out), with the exception of getting 4th instead of winning. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Caitlin & Will at least have a charting single. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject has been covered by reliable sources, and it seems that notability will continue to growth. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amar (Arab Singer)
- Amar (Arab Singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can find no validation for the claim of notability or fame. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 00:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 00:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unable to independently verify information. Nothing on Google or allmusic. Non-notable artist. JamesBurns (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the fact that she is Arabic makes it a bit hard to accurately asses coverage (mostly the different alphabet); however, Google a search for her name and the name of either one of her 'popular' songs brings up no hits aside from this article so I am going to assume non-notability on the grounds that if she were notable in Lebanon there should be at least a few English results. Icewedge (talk) 19:31, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wildr
- Wildr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable as per policy. No content edit since creation mid-2007, so stayed as stub. One album, no links. No references. Likely the article's focus is on the article creator himself. Dancraggs (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 19:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Could potentially be speedied, probably. Seegoon (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't find him on the external links, and a search doesn't suggest he meets WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:44, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rama Claproth
- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph M Remy
- Joseph M Remy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable violinist. Only thing I can find on "Joseph Remy" or "Joseph Ma" that remotely matches the person described in this article is a passing mention here, but that's hardly enough to establish notability. Very impressive if the article is true, but no RS coverage turned up. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article subject is not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia.THD3 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N T-95 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I'm inclined to think this is a hoax, given the fact that someone who has apparently had such a successful career so far does not seem to be mentioned anywhere. Willing to change my mind if definitive proof of this person's existence can be provided. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - why is there not an AfD tag on the article in question? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, The user that created this article, Got mad at us for putting a AfD tag on the article and started to vandalize. Seen Here and Here Hmmm --Michael (Talk) 17:55, 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 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We Are The Emergency
- 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 No consensus/keep. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Righteous
- Mount Righteous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not meet WP:MUSIC's notability requirements for bands or artists. Also, only source is a blog which is not W:RS Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did find this, but the website doesn't appear to be reputable or well known. -Senseless!... says you, says me 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage, no awards, no charts, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of third-party, non trivial coverage, being on MySpace is not an assertion of notability. -Senseless!... says you, says me 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The band appears to have received significant coverage in a number of Texas media: [6] [7] [8] as well as a few others that are behind a pay wall. I'd say it's enough to recommend a keep, per WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BAND, in its examples, characterizes as "trivial coverage" directory-like listings of performance dates, or contact or booking details. The articles to which I offered links above are not like that at all: they are articles that are entirely about this band. The citations do need to be added to the article, with content added to the article, but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources provided by Paul Erik. It meets WP:MUSIC. Timmeh! 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with the above sources it meets WP:MUSIC. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 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. No indication that this meets wp:bio. Keep arguments rely on an assumption that the band is notable. Although there may be enough coverage to support an article about the band, just, there is no independent coverage of Lombard in particular. Flowerparty☀ 08:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirk Lombard
- Kirk Lombard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete so he has caught the largest of a species of fish - does each such recordholder get a page here; what about the growers of the biggest tomato, squash, etc... Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The fact that he was founder of an apparently-notable band (see two reviews in reliable sources linked at the bottom of the article) is probably more relevant than the fish. JulesH (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable for his role in the band, rather than for catching the fish. If we had an article on his band (we don't, but it could be a good project for someone), it might be a decent merge target, but as it is I think the article ought to stay for now. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:33, 3 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 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per substantial coverage. COuld also be merged if necessary?ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 2 articles about the band he's in does not impart notability to him. If the band had its own article on Wikipedia, his name would be redirected to the band's article. Since there isn't an article on the band, this should just go away. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no stand alone notability, no band article, transient coverage of an event, non-notable artist. JamesBurns (talk) 01:30, 10 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. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Goretex (rapper)
- Goretex (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable underground (way underground) rapper with only one (non-charting) album. Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kinda hard to see from the article itself, but I know this guy as being a fully paid-up member of the definitely notable Non Phixion. I remember him getting some press when his album dropped a few years back, but apart from this I can't pull much else out of Google right now - I'd love this to stay but gotta go for a Delete, unless reliable sources turn up before the close of this discussion. sparkl!sm hey! 20:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've also found this and this - do these make a claim to notability? sparkl!sm hey! 20:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The review you linked originally does indicate the possibility of notability but these 2 links are to a store (fatbeats.com) and a site that appears to mirror content from Amazon in order to drive traffic there. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything salvageable and redirect to Non Phixion, his band. Once his solo career goes somewhere he can have his own article, but until then we should direct people to the most relevant information, since it is a valid search term. — Gwalla | Talk 21:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage, no awards, non-notable artist. JamesBurns (talk) 01:28, 10 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)
- 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
- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shanell Woodgett
- Shanell Woodgett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not appear to be a notable person. Has already been speedied once and PRODed (which got contested by author). FunPika 20:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:Notability. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete References show nothing which comes close to meeting WP:MUSICBIO. None of the writing credits appear to meet WP:COMPOSER. I42 (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' fails WP:MUSICBIO, lacks reliable sources. Very first version of the file had a CSD tag which makes me wonder how seriously the author takes it's creation.--RadioFan (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Has co-writing credits on some biggish records but no hit songs. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:56, 8 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Mean Machine (rap group)
- The Mean Machine (rap group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't think that this article meets the notability requirements, per WP:BAND. Chzz ► 11:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - "The group is often cited as the first bilingual rap group, and is possibly the first ever Latino rap group" sounds pretty notable to me (I just sourced it too). Gbooks shows +-70 books for "Mean Machine" latin, so I don't think meeting WP:BAND or WP:NOTABILITY will be a problem. WP:BEFORE — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand, sources are available to establish notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:41, 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, I'mperator 13:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. They have a unique place in the history of hip-hop. The New York Times described "Disco Dream" as an "early rap standout".[9] Also mentioned here and here.--Michig (talk) 14:29, 10 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
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Poison Arrows
- The Poison Arrows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete fails WP:BAND, speedy was declined because they claim to be signed to a blue-link label - enough to defeat a speedy deletion, but not sufficent to meet WP:BAND. Also, no sources, no context, not much of an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This needs some investigating. The press release says that the band has been "featured in a number of publications including Blender, XLR8R, Skyscraper, Maxim, Chicago Reader, Time Out Chicago, Rhapsody.com, Rcrdlbl.com, Ghetto Blaster, Livedaily.com, Popmatters.com, and Emusic.com". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm struggling to find more info - one of their members, Pat Morris has a wikipedia entry already through being in Don Caballero, and they have connections to a lot of other blue link people - Che Arthur and atombombpocketknife for example. They have 3 releases listed at allmusic.com [10] but allmusic isnt always reliable. I'm sure there's more out there.....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:MUSIC—singer/guitarist from Atombombpocketknife, bassist from Don Caballero. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep , passes WP:MUSIC#C1 as well; [11], [12], [13], [14]. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:17, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enough coverage exists to demonstrate notability. Here's coverage from PopMatters: [15], [16].--Michig (talk) 06:55, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 21:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Freaks of Reality
- Freaks of Reality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable music group with big claims, probably autobiographical. Truthbanks12345 (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable Apart from that Juno nomination there's no evidence of them doing anything else - Google search for "Freaks of Reality" -wiki -facebook -myspace gives 10 hits. [17] Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Juno Award nomination alone passes WP:BAND #8 ("been nominated for a major music award"). TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While the article as written is a disaster, the Juno nomination does carry the band as a notable topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the Juno award. I've updated the ref on the page for one that doesn't require the user to go searching. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Juno award means inclusion criteria have been met even if no other sources were to turn up. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does just a nomination make it notable even with nothing else? If so I change to keeep :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominated for the award, as mentioned above, so the requirement for existence has been met. Also, its a stub, clearly labeled as such, so you can't expect a full article yet. Dream Focus 18:19, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Valentiger
- Valentiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not meet any of the notability criteria at WP:BAND. Zeagler (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: MySpace band, trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN. Mbinebri talk ← 23:35, 11 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. Wizardman 16:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Noonan
- Matthew Noonan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC. As far as I can tell, notability was never established for the subject and the notability tag was removed by an anonymous IP (70.63.97.110) back in '07 without addressing the problem. The references (external links) give don't establish any notability either and I've found nothing on Google to indicate any. Pinkadelica Say it... 07:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cannot find any references to him in reliable sources to back up the claims made in the article. It seems strange that someone who is supposed to have won a national competition isn't even mentioned on the competition organiser's website[18] or that there are no ghits[19] to verify the five claimed tours of Europe. --JD554 (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteNo liable references.Jamiebijania (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 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. Black Kite 15:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan DelMain
- Dan DelMain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable bagpipe performer. Neither a Google nor a Google News search turns up adequate sources to support notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and was not able to find any sources for this musician. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In repsonse to Pastor Theo (talk), type into google "Dan DelMain" and the fourth link which pops up is a link to *Portland Bagpiper, showcasing a history and recorded songs. Also, the previous links take you to the *Bagpiper.com website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelmain (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may also reference *Dan DelMain | Portland Metro Pipe Band which has a link back to the *Dan DelMain | Wikipedia article
--Dandelmain (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Dan_DelMain[reply]
- Delete No evidence in reliable sources to prove notability. Spiesr (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:00, 9 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 00:01, 11 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
- 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 delete. Tone 16:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jasper (singer)
- Jasper (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Vanity autobiography of non-notable singer. Subject has himself been promoting the autobiography, and has removed the proposed deletion notice. (His "references" include self-published "Myspace" page. The two mentions in Daily Star's kids magazine has surprisingly similar text, and possibly the same article recycled twice. Other than that, no mention in mainstream media. There is also a big conflict of interest, with the subject himself adding to his own autobiography. Ragib (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, An autobiography of an artist MEANS that it's written by the artist himself. So, I suppose you were speaking of a "biography" at all points and not an "autobiography". The references include Jasper's MySpace page have been removed, I've noticed. Citation is required. That's understandable as long as it's a matter of the history of the artist (biography). But, removing his page because of this would be simply unreasonable and unethical according to as far as my understanding goes.
- The articles issued in The Daily Star were featured in The Rising Stars and the Campus. NONE OF THEM are kids' magazines, I'd beg to differ. And, they definitely are two different articles since they have been PUBLISHED in two different places and dates. Now, of course, we wouldn't assume that the artist has hacked the website of one of the most recognized newspapers' website and has put the articles himself. And, on a second point, the articles referred to the existence of this artist in industry important enough to be interviewed. That, to me or everyone else, should be more important than the noticing if the information on the artist, who already appeared in his exclusive TV show with his band according to this http://www.amadergaan.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26270&page=43 and at the bottom of this source http://www.thedailystar.net/campus/2009/04/01/feature_funk.htm, has been REPEATED.
- I've also noticed the references to AmaderGaan has been removed when they themselves have a Wikipedia page, placing a strong base on the circle of the industry, HAS put professional reviews on the artist, his band and the albums he was associated with. I'd like to understand why would this happen? If you thought it was just a website forum, you're wrong. Check its Wikipedia page, amaderGaan. It's a big organization which is heavily active in organizing major concerts and TV shows throughout the country, sponsoring big time artists. But then again, from another angle, it's also like a mainstream portal, kind of like Allmusic.com of Bangladesh. It is THE biggest musical organization of this kind of the Bangladeshi music industry. And it also HAPPENS to have a forum. THAT's ALL.
- P.S. I'll ask you to search these things, "jasper bangladesh", "jasper kata taarer bera" and "jasper groovetrap" in GOOGLE. Besides the massive attention of the fans Jasper has, a non-notable artist from Bangladesh doesn't have his music illegally shared in more than 400 websites, do they?
- P.S.2. And, his song Club Sokina was the 61st of the most wanted songs of 2008, even above half a dozen of Habib/Fuad/Topu songs, among the other giants, on RadioFoorti out of the thousands of songs released all over Bangladesh that year according to this http://www.amadergaan.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27585. He has FANS.
Tran5par3ncy (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Myspace, a self-published social networking site, is NOT a reference for encyclopedic content. Same applies to a forum site like Amadergaan. --Ragib (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks also for bringing up the article on amaderGaan, the website failes WP:N, and is not encyclopedic. I'll nominate that unreferenced, orphaned article when I have time. Existence of a unreferenced article on WP does not make amaderGaan a reliable source ... it was, and still is a web forum. --Ragib (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - he seems to have a lot of fans (a cult following?), and mentions in periodicals, thus notable per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Unfortunately all of the keep arguments above are perfectly void on Wikipedia. The article fails the general notability guideline and self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves - two of the core policies. If this article stays then Wikipedia policies will have to go, I guess. Web Forums, Facebook, MySpace, passing mention in a newspaper... and such sources to validate and verify the notability of one singer who is hardly known beyond the 500 people he grew up with isn't encyclopedic even by the most stretched out imagination. No, dears, this is material for the trashcan. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - I do strongly agree with the proposed deletion. As per WP:MUSIC, a band or person is notable if he Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. Unfortunately both the references presented on this article are from kid magazines and written by fans and audiences who are mainly school and university students, not an expert or independent journalist. In fact, nature of these two magazines are to encourage young reader to come up and write armature article on different issues. Even I have couple of articles published there. Moreover, he does not have any chart single or any record certified gold or higher or even other coverage. Facebook and Myspace pages can not assert popularity of a person unless he receives significant media coverage from national and regional body. I wonder, it might be a case of WP:COI as the creator of this article is new on Wikipedia and working only on this article. Thus, I vote for a strong deletion of such a Vanity article. - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 08:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No matter what your "personal" opinions of the artist and his fans are, NOTHING you've mentioned justifies the page to be deleted. WIKIPEDIA is not about personal opinions. As long as the artist is mentioned in mainstream media (newspapers, TV) with studio albums out making notable places in local charts (what charts were you looking for in Bangladesh? MTV?) and selling large amount of copies (Bangladesh doesn't have anything like RIAA so the number of sales is unverifiable - those in newspapers and magazines are just statements from the artists themselves, so they're as unverifiable as Jasper). But, doing some google search like "jasper kata taarer bera" would feed your personal interest in finding a clue of why this artist could've been NOTABLE. SO, the only thing that seems justifiable is moving the article from AfD to NORMAL articles, removing biography part OR putting a citation needed tag encouraging someone to fill it up from a more reliable source. THANK you. Tran5par3ncy Tran5par3ncy (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a duplicate opinion from the same user, see his first opinion above. --Ragib (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed the strong keep to comment as not to confuse the closing admin. Timmeh! 18:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a duplicate opinion from the same user, see his first opinion above. --Ragib (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Ragib (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it fails WP:N. There is almost no coverage by reliable third-party sources. Timmeh! 18:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:V. And I'd like to point out that this discussion has two nominations for "keep", one by the original editor. If you remove all comments by the original editor (who seems to be a WP:SPA), the discussion is fairly bland. For those interested, you can see here what the article looks like when all comments by, about or in reply to Tran5par3ncy are removed. Greg Tyler (t • c) 13:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
- Comment Dude, we just need the sources - those two on the article are not from reliable sources. If its been in charts then there'll be proof somewhere! We aren't on a crusade to delete everything, we trying build a great quality encyclopedia, which means everything has to be verifiable Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand, bro. But, I don't understand how two articles on The Daily Star (Bangladesh) can be not reliable sources. Check pages like Aurthohin and more. They have one reference from the same newspaper. Whereas this one has two. RadioFoorti website has some problems, so the reference towards the Most Wanted songs couldn't be referred directly. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Also, you have already voted once. --Ragib (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That was not my argument. The argument is about the reliability of a source you've questioned that HAS been portrayed as a reliable source for another approved page. I'm not violating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Anyway, referring to Aurthohin is a very minor but important point I've mentioned. But, I'm sure you've noticed the other ones too. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, your referral to other articles is simply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Now, since you insist on Google search, let's see. jasper kata taarer bera shows only 126 hits, (after removing facebook, youtube, esnips, myspace etc.). Shows clearly that the subject (Jasper) is quite non notable. --Ragib (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And add the search result of "jasper groovetrap" to that? Tran5par3ncy (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Then according to you, two of other referrals (The Daily Star) doesn't violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That's something to talk about. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Jasper Groovetrap" gets 2 google hits......[20] Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WRONG. Do not include the quotation marks when you search. That only searches for sentences like "... jasper groovetrap...". Check this... http://www.google.com.bd/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=nhX&q=jasper+groovetrap&btnG=Search&meta= Tran5par3ncy (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Anyway, so many arguments above is unanswered. Please, check those. I'm not the artist, brothers. I'm not a big fan either. I just opened up a page that an artist deserved. And, I've opened this with all the rules acknowledged. I don't believe I've violated any rules according to his notability or the reliability of the sources. Technically, I'm right. I can't let my article be deleted for improper reasons. So, PLEASE finish the arguments. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What "arguments" are unanswered? Japser (if it's not you) fails WP:N miserably. I also googled Jasper Groovetrap without quotes, and got about 107 results, mostly from self-posted Youtube and forum links. Per WP:MUSIC, trivial or one-time coverage from a single article is not enough. Besides, it seems that the Daily Star weekend supplement articles have a large amount of text from Jasper's press release ... a lot of the text is also found in several fan pages. --Ragib (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.google.com.bd/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=3zD&q=jasper+groovetrap+-facebook+-myspace+-forum+-youtube&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= then how about this without facebook, myspace,youtube, forums. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's *exactly* what I've done here, run the query and filtering out Jasper's own myspace page, his facebook page, and other self-published pages. Seems like he is only "famous" :D when we consider his facebook and his own myspace page ... LOL. So much for a "notable" "famous" musician!! --Ragib (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.google.com.bd/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=3zD&q=jasper+groovetrap+-facebook+-myspace+-forum+-youtube&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= then how about this without facebook, myspace,youtube, forums. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You know what, I rest my case from here. You can do whatever you like with the page. But, I'd hope someone in the future brings Wikipedia more sources for the article to be rebuilt in the future as he really deserves it. Thanks for all, bros. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That GHit argument is so invalid. Try my name - with quote marks you'll have 1,010 hits,a and without quote marks 111,000 hits. That's way more than Jasper (singer). Hahahhaahahha... there goes your famous singer, who only has a self-posted existence on the web, and not really much on the ground. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha. That just means you're an excessively self-exposed person on the web AND him on the ground. LOL. Watch before you say, funny guy. Anyway, this is pointless. 202.79.17.132 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True. This is pointless, rather "these" are. The article is, this "singer" is, and the strange argument to keep the article4 obviously is. Can you cite a single reason, apart from your "personal belief" in the "singer"s fame? Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting Tran5par3ncy have so far edited almost solely this AfD page and the article in discussion (which was almost solely edited by Tran5par3ncy), and 202.79.17.132 edited so far only this page. Probably the same person masquerading as two. Not too brilliant a move, I'd say. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting My detective friend, it IS the same user. LOL. I was writing something and for some reason I got logged out. So, I pressed "save page" and it took me in as "anonymous" for your KIND investigation. LOL. I don't believe, I've made it clear enough that I REST MY CASE. You can continue with your duty. Please, do not further put arguments about it towards me since I've put an end to mine. I'm very sorry I couldn't give enough sources. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just noticed that the entire article is a blatant copyvio from Jasper's myspace page. User:Tran5par3ncy claims he is not Jasper, yet Jasper's personal myspace page has the exact content as Tran5par3ncy's addition to the page. :). I have removed the copyvio text from the article. --Ragib (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yeah, I've copied it from his MySpace MUSIC page. Why do I need to be JASPER, LOL, for that? Or, did they make new privacy settings on MySpace music pages that fans or viewers can't visit the site. I believe, everyone being able to visit the site is THE main point of it. You sometimes amaze me. Anyway, thanks for removing the copied stuff from MySpace. It's certainly not a reliable source. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, the Daily star campus weeked supplement article seem to plagiarize a lot of content from the other article (even though the writers are "supposedly" different). Especially, the 9th paragraph "Proceeding further in the album ..." is almost a verbatim copy of the 5th paragraph of the Rising star page. :) --Ragib (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If only you guys monitored all the Wikipedia entries like this one! Wonders would've happened. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, do you have any problem with what we do with our time? Please don't get personal, rather focus on the discussion on *this article* here. I believe the case for the AFD is very clear by this time, and non-notability of the subject has been established. As for your curiosity, yes I DO monitor all new BD related articles, in order to weed out non-notable people writing autobiographies. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wasn't getting personal, you know. Anyway, what's gonna happen to the article now? Deletion? Just a general curiosity. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Interesting! I took part in more than hundred AfDs but never faced such arguments. Tran5par3ncy, you are new on WP and I would like to welcome you to this charming world. We are not against any new artist but just waiting for his notability to be established. I would also recommend you (just an advise, don't take it otherwise) to read different Wikipedia policies. It will help you to understand how to work on Wikipedia. You gave us two references from Daily Star; let me give you one! [21]. Cheers. - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 22:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen worse. One guy claimed that the article on a certain person should be kept, because that person shot that editor's brother in the legs, and then drove him to hospital! Another editor actually supported per the brother. What wonders we find here. Such wonderful reasoning! Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 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 03:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surjeet Singh (Sarangi)
- Surjeet Singh (Sarangi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article was considered for speedy deletion, but subsequently passed after copyrighted material from the official website of the subject was included. I removed copyrighted material but put every reliable source I could find in the article. I believe the article still fails notability for both music and academics. Hekerui (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it is a redirect to the page in question:
- Surjeet Singh Sarangi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Comment--I found this. If one or two more sources pop up I think there might be enough for an article, for a weak keep. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know exactly what to make of this. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure he's the same person. Hekerui (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Difficult to decide from the article and the references provided - Does not say his awards, his achievements and how much he is associated with Ram Narayan etc. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm the one who originally tagged this article for speedy deletion, but I withdrew when the creator made edits that addressed the A7 concern by inserting sources. However, these two sources are trivial: the Allmusic page for Singh does exist, but it is currently blank. The other source simply states that Singh is a pupil of such and such. No prejudice against recreation once Singh makes a name for himself. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that it was in April of last year that I tagged this article for speedy deletion. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. Hekerui (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Given that the London college of Music page describes him as "He has established himself as a wonderful artist and a great teacher in this astonishing instrument", he well might be. These pages on their faculty do not appear to be written by the individuals concerned. I agree they are not wholly independent, but it's a very reputable institution. Needs a proper check for sources in the languages and country most likely to have them, but what's there is a sufficient indication that it is sourceable. . DGG (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you noticed that the page which makes that statement is under the section "Staff profiles"? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 00:57, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 09:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bonnie Bishop
- Bonnie Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Potentially non-notable country singer. Appears to have one article in a reliable source, but that's about it, therefore slipping below notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do a Google search. She has 56,000 hits, and three current news stories. She has a lot of fans. I figured if I started the article one of them would work on it. 2ndAmendment (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 16:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability that I can see.Weak keep - not very notable, really andy (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- And what about the fact that she has been in the papers since 2002, and has 3 or 4 albums? She is a lot more well known than many other musicians who have articles. Her new album is just being released now and she will be getting a lot of attention from it. Pre-release copies were available last Saturday. Check this out: "Around Texas, Bonnie always stood out at regional festivals and clubs because she was one of very few female artists who was able to make a mark in the male-dominated scene. It didn’t take long before she was sharing bills with artists such as Jack Ingram and Radney Foster and frequenting top venues in the state including Billy Bob’s Texas, Antones, and the Mucky Duck." Why would they have articles and not Bonnie Bishop? 2ndAmendment (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned up some of the citations and added a reference. Apparently one of her singles charted on a Texas music chart for six months. But anyway, with non-trivial coverage in The Post and Courier, The Sun News, the Houston Chronicle, and The Galveston County Daily News, that's sufficient to meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSICBIO, so it's a keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I wasn't trying to get fancy, just wanted to create the article so that it could be worked on. I'm sure a more directed search would turn up a lot more news clippings, and I did see a lot more, but avoided the ones you have to pay to read, or even the ones where you have to register to read. I just knew that she had been out there for a long time and saw her in the news and figured it was time to create the article. Hopefully the new album will do at least a small portion of what Nick of Time did for Bonnie Raitt. 2ndAmendment (talk) 05:42, 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 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok who told everyone about the article? Bonnie Bishop is currently getting more page views than Bonnie Raitt normally gets - almost a thousand a day for BB vs. normally about 500 a day for BR. 2ndAmendment (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Adequate coverage to demonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 16:48, 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 delete. Wizardman 15:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Andrews (musician)
- Chris Andrews (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is no real claim of notability under WP:MUSICBIO here, and I can't find any decent sources. The only one of the sources offered that is independent and reliable (the Google Books link) is just a few sentences saying how little there is to be said about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination,
its also WP:COPYVIO from here [22]Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies,no its not WP:COPYVIO, didnt realise that site's a mirror Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 00:40, 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 00:23, 11 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)
- 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)
- 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; [23], and another at Pitchfork Media; [24] 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 [25] 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: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]--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.
- 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 09:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overflow Crowds Band
- Overflow Crowds Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Entirely non-notable; band may exist but not with alleged band members, there is no credible 3rd-party coverage of this group, and the page seems to be entirely filled with fiction. LazySofa (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 00:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This looks like a hoax. No allmusic.com entry. Their official website is hosted on a free website with non-related ad banners, very strange for an act that claims a member of the The Veronicas in it. It appears they once had a myspace page but that's now disappeared. JamesBurns (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BOLLOCKS, fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. sparkl!sm hey! 12:57, 6 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 00:01, 11 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nikola Rachelle
- Nikola Rachelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO.
- Bundling with it her album Don't Talk About This Love. If they should be kept, the album should be merged into the bio per WP:NALBUMS. لennavecia 17:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Some coverage already in the article, and more found from a quick Google search: [35], [36]. Just about enough there. The EP article should definitely be merged in. --Michig (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's borderline, but I'm leaning towards keep. I added a source or two to the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:07, 5 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 18:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hasan Salaam
- Hasan Salaam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable rapper and community volunteer. At first glance appears to be OK, there are references and he's won awards. However, the awards are not significant (as required by WP:MUSIC) and the references are from 1) a user-submitted-content site 2) CDBaby (an online store) 3) an unknown site (hiphoppalalce.com, mislabeled as Hip Hop Connection—the site is currently down) (reliablilty?) 4) and a blog. A fifth reference is ostensibly from Source magazine, which is good but the link is to a blog (for the text) and MySpace (for an image of the article). If the image of the article is to be trusted, it appears to be a sidebar of another, larger article on an unknown topic. So really the only thing near to a reliable source, is the Source article, and even that is on shaky ground. Fails WP:MUSIC (and close to failing WP:V). TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable via significant coverage ([37], [38], [39], [40]). Video interview from Thisisrealmusic.com. Further coverage from college newspapers: [41], [42], [43]. Further brief mentions: [44], [45], [46]. 3 albums listed at allmusic. --Michig (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, my searches pulled up virtually the same ones as Michig, so there's no point in relisting them. Passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 13:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The two articles from The Source looks fine too (although the one from Feb 2009 is pretty much all his own words so isn't suitable as a reference - before anyone else jumps in and states the obvious).--Michig (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 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 18:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The article has been improved since it was listed here. The nominator's comments on the sourcing in the article relate to the sources prior to the improvement.--Michig (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient coverage in hiphopdx, Exclaim!, The Source, etc. (Also the blog mentioned above was the blog of Rich Knight, the journalist who wrote the piece in question.) 86.44.26.18 (talk) 21:02, 11 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 Linkin Park. MBisanz talk 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Bourdon
- Rob Bourdon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Member of a notable band who has no individual notability outside of that band. Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect The article is clearly lacking references (bad for a BLP) and half of it is trivial info on his drum kit, but it's quite possible he can meet the WP:GNG later on. Redirecting to the main band because his name is a viable search term is the best solution and allows someone to add references if they're so inclined. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable on his own. JamesBurns (talk) 06:12, 5 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 00:02, 7 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]