Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:13, 4 July 2022 editAlexandermcnabb (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers18,358 edits Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christopher Jessup (musician).Tag: Twinkle ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:00, 4 July 2022 edit undoHemantha (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,746 edits Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Bengali_songs_recorded_by_Runa_Laila (assisted)Next edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:
	== Music ==		== Music ==
	<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->		<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Bengali_songs_recorded_by_Runa_Laila}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christopher Jessup (musician)}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christopher Jessup (musician)}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Almost Ready Records}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Almost Ready Records}}

Revision as of 12:00, 4 July 2022

Shortcut

WP:DSMUSIC

Points of interest related to Music on Misplaced Pages:
History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Style – To-do

Points of interest related to Music genres on Misplaced Pages:
Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Cleanup – Assessment


Deletion Sorting Project
(talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

Deletion Sorting
Project

AfD: Today, Yesterday

Delsort scripts

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 {{Misplaced Pages: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 {{Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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

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. This has run a month, and I do not see any situation where a consensus is going to evolve. Note, socks, duplicate votes have been disregarded, but even among established editors and the later trend-we do not have clear keep consensus here. Suggest discussion continue editorially as to whether a merger would be a solution or a size issue. Star Mississippi 14:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila

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

like the dozens of other articles this user has created, this isn't a necessary standalone list and is basically just an itunes directory. Anything relevant can be included in the main article about Runa Laila (as in anything that can be sourced outside of places to buy it.) PRAXIDICAE💕 20:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete because[REDACTED] is WP:NOTDIRECTORY BrigadierG (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

What would you say about those articles? List of songs recorded by Neha Kakkar, List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar, List of songs recorded by Shalmali Kholgade. They are also similar type of directory and should be deleted for the same reason. I hope everyone will consider my points. Abbasulu (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Strongly Keep - there are similar aticles List of songs recorded by Shalmali Kholgade, List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar. Why they aren’t deleted? Abbasulu (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Abbasulu: Please see WP:WHATABOUT. "What about (something)?" is an argument strongly discouraged in deletion discussions. The linked page says:

The nature of Misplaced Pages means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.

I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 22:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Albums and songs, and Bangladesh. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, obviously enough. Misplaced Pages is not itunes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
There are many list articles precisely of a person’s discography, very similar to this. Why nominate this article for deletion in particular? Abyan Malek (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably you have not watched these articles List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik, List of Urdu songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal. Both of these articles are similar, they are simply a collection of names of their songs, as is this article. And the latter lne is a collection of just 12 entries, very small article. This can easily be redirected or merged in her discography article. Plaese consider these cases and judge fairly. I see many similar but weaker discography or itules type indiscriminate lists stay in[REDACTED] for years but not raising any eyebrews. Abbasulu (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Happily obliged: both of these are now at AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep because arricles like this exist but theres no reason to delete this because it may be similar to an 'itune' listing. Abyan Malek (talk) 5:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:DEL-REASON: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following: 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. This, being a trivial directory-like listing of seemingly every song ever recorded by some artist (information which probably is of no interest whatsoever except to the most dedicated of fans), is obviously "not suitable", as explicitly established by the community. Similarly problematic lists should also be deleted - go read WP:WHATABOUTX: it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Runa Laila#Discography as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SBKSPP (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed by Superastig as "redirect to Runa Laila#Discography as an WP:ATD. Discarding the "keep" votes which state WP:OTHERSTUFF. Anyone is free to merge anything important to the target article." This was overturned as a WP:BADNAC at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 20.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to Runa Laila#Discography because this is an excessively lengthy directory, and the encyclopedia would be better served with a more selective listing. Reyk _YO! 09:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete The only arguments for keeping this list are of the form WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.

In contrast, there are strong policy-based arguments that this list does not belong in Misplaced Pages, which does not aim to be a list of everything, but to be a high-quality encyclopedia. Being an encyclopedia means not just listing songs in a discography, but providing prose analysis of them, summarizing what reliable sources say about their recording, reception, significance, and influence.

This list also fails the most common notability guideline for lists, because no independent reliable source has discussed the Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila as a group. And it fails the three purposes of lists. Without analysis, the list does not convey encyclopedic information. Out of the roughly 700 songs, none has a Misplaced Pages article, and there's no evidence that any of them are notable, so the list does not allow the reader to navigate among them. If it is intended as a development list, it should be in user space, not article space.

Merge is inappropriate because only about 4% of the songs cite any source, the sources don't always support all of the content where cited, and the sources aren't always reliable (IMDb, Amazon). Redirect is an alternative to deletion that recognizes that the content does not belong on Misplaced Pages. Redirect is not inappropriate, but not particularly helpful in this case, as any reader looking for a list of songs recorded by Runa Laila will find Runa Laila with or without a redirect. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding a redirect, I agree that WP:RKEEP 3 (aids search) does not really apply. Searching for the exact list title returns unrelated "List of songs recorded by" articles, but the shortened and more likely Bengali songs Runa Laila returns Runa Laila as its first result, followed by an Urdu song list and this list. Intersecting List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila#Album songs and Runa Laila#Discography, the only overlap is the album Ganga Amar Ma Padma Amar Ma. Its track list is not included in her article – to be clear, I oppose merging it as it would overwhelm the section – and it doesn't have an article, so a reader looking for Bengali songs would not find them. This approaches common WP:Redirects for discussion rationale "not mentioned at/in target" and WP:RDELETE 2 (confusing). Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Instead of replying, Please clearly cast your opinion, whether you support for deletion or keeping. It will count as a vote. Thank you. Abbasulu (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

~~The policy based argument, made in an old AfD of a similar article (recently quoted at another AfD), appears to be WP:WORKS. Hemantha (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)~~ (

Blocked sockpuppet) --Guerillero 21:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Strongly Keep - The other two articles on Runa Laila has successfully survived deletion. This discussion is meaningless. Most of the directory articles have easily survived deletion. Abbasulu (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That's twice now you've voted. Avilich (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Abbasulu You're not allowed to vote twice. SBKSPP (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep: Discography of a notable singer is a valid WP:CFORK. Venkat TL (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and India. Hemantha (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep, per arguments that have been extensively developed in related AFDs (and which I thought, apparently incorrectly, that I had already posted here), and in particular per the following:
- Absent strong considerations to the contrary, WP:EDIT and particularly WP:PRESERVE prevail, and issues over the scope and content of these lists should be addressed through collaborative editing (the "wiki process"), for which AFD is neither necessary nor helpful. And there are no policy-based reasons for deletion or removal here, let alone any strong ones, as detailed below.
- I'm not sure CFORK is quite on point here, but it doesn't matter, because this seems like a perfectly cromulent WP:SIZESPLIT.
- NOTADIRECTORY first observes that Misplaced Pages does often provide useful directory-like functions, but qualifies this with six examples of directories that Misplaced Pages is not. Only two of these exclusions could conceivably apply here, but neither actually does: (1) This is not a "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit", because the value of this list precisely comes from the "contextual information" with which this list is richly endowed. (2) This is also not a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization": language is a logical categorization that arises directly from the subject matter. A "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" would be something like "Songs performed by X in movies that also featured views of the Taj Mahal."
- INDISCRIMINATE states that "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources", and provides some specific examples of indiscriminate content (none of which apply -- a list of songs is not a "lyrics database"). Even if a "should" could create a basis for deletion, it does not do so here, because this list does put its data into context. Although we might quibble over the current state of sourcing of this list, that is a matter for improvement, not deletion.
- WP:NLIST: (a) does not provide an independent basis for deletion, since it merely enumerates one example of a type of list that is generally considered non-deletable, and (b) is highly unlikely to apply when the topic of the list is the very same body of work for which the singer is notable in the first place, as is the case here.
- WHATABOUT / OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a subsection of an essay about how some Wikipedians dislike some arguments. In fact, the longstanding presence of numerous lists of this kind is a far better guide to global Misplaced Pages consensus, as established through collaborative editing, than any local consensus could ever be in the unrepresentative environment of AFD. (For a different take than mine, but one that still takes the wind out of the sails of this popular shout-down, see the essay Misplaced Pages:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments.) I could write up an essay about how WHATABOUT is a silly argument and go around citing that as if it were policy, but that would be just as ridiculous as citing WHATABOUT in this way.
- Finally, per the great-grandmother of all policies, this content is useful and encyclopedic and Misplaced Pages would be diminished by its absence. Therefore, any guidelines, policies or essays that appear to militate against its inclusion are either being misconstrued or are so inapposite that they can reasonably be ignored in this and similar cases. Likewise, any claims that arguments not grounded in (other) Misplaced Pages policies should be ignored as not being "policy based" should be disregarded, because (a) they ignore the reason for having policies to begin with and (b) such gatekeeping is fundamentally contrary to the idea of an open wiki. -- Visviva (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Lists like this of notable singers in South Asian Indian film industries where songs are important to the films are perfectly fine, but they've got to be better sourced. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Runa Laila is notable and her work is notable. This informative list belongs in Misplaced Pages. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Visviva's overview is an excellent rationale. Shahid • 19:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete Discography not discussed in WP:Reliable sources ("If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it"). Does not contain "contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" (IINFO, NOTDIRECTORY, etc.), and is only as good as the spotify and apple music directories which it solely cites as sources. Avilich (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep: Per Visviva, the many "policy-based arguments" for deletion are, at the very least, misconstrued and wrongly applied to this article and do not stand under scrutiny. The suggestion that a listing of songs of a singer (that is, their body of work) is not notable is silly when the singer's claim to notability is coverage of that very body of work. The grouping by language is most likely a WP:SIZESPLIT because a single page would be too long to navigate comfortably. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Per Visviva; + would especially like to emphasise this part of WHATABOUT which is all too frequently ignored: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep per arguments above, this seems like a perfectly valid supplemental page. Artw (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

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 result was speedy delete. Sock creation Star Mississippi 20:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Christopher Jessup (musician)

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

Article states he is a Grammy award winner but presents not one shred of evidence to support this - the cite is to a festival where he was to give a masterclass. There is no notability on offer here, sourcing is poor/incidental mentions or non-RS sources - Bach Cantatas article 'contributed by Christopher Jessup' and New York Concert Review is a paid for service - that's just for starters. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment, I don't know whether this is any use: ? It's a named-author review that refers the Carnegie Hall performances but not any Grammy award. I'm not sure of the reliability of the site, and I'm nervous that the information may have been collected unselectively from other sources. The other sources that I can find are all interviews, e.g. . Really we need something secondary. It might be WP:TOOSOON. Elemimele (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete per G5 see here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Almost Ready Records

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

Fails WP:GNG. Record store in Brooklyn, also apparently a label. No notability for either. Previously tagged, PRODed in 2016, nothing much has changed in notability since then. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Spiderone 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete A Google search finds no reliable sources about it, and only a few sites at all, mainly vinyl websites and social media. Definitely fails WP:GNG. JML1148 (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep - Accepted at AfC on the basis of the following significant coverage: , , ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete not notable, and those sources do not constitute "significant coverage", two don't pass WP:RS and the other isn't an especially notable column in Vice. Overall article is WP:SOAP. Acous mana 09:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per the sources Kvng listed. Only Brooklyn Magazine is reliable and gives significant coverage to the subject: 50 Third and 3rd has disclaimers in their T&C that implies no editorial review of articles (i.e., it's blog-quality material), and the Vice story covers the founder of the label, not the label itself. —C.Fred (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Festival of Nations (Minnesota)

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

This page is written too much like an advertisement... When you look it up Google shows a music festival. No references. Doesn't seem notable enough. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 21:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Minnesota. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete as entirely unreferenced. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom.`~HelpingWorld~` 06:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 03:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Chris Jarrett

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

Tagged for possible WP:NMUSIC failure since 2010 and lack of references since 2011. No significant third-party coverage. —{Canuck lehead} 01:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. —{Canuck lehead} 01:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Pennsylvania. Spiderone 11:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete, couldn't find any sources either. Ten Pound Hammer • 03:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. Consensus to keep due to charting records per WP:BAND. Although provided source for charts cannot be searched online, other searches do seem to confirm existence of band and the charting records. TigerShark (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Pangaea (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band. The only thing that even comes up when you search "Pangaea band" is a different band from the US. It was already deleted before (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pangaea_(band)) but apparantly recreated--- FMSky (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. FMSky (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Multiple charting releases satisfies WP:BAND#2. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Three charting albums. Maybe best to google with Ely's name added. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 17:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. ✗plicit 10:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Alan Messer

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

References do not satisfy WP:N KSAWikipedian (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, and Tennessee. Netherzone (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Seems to be a notable photographer. Described as one of the world’s top music photographers, in Nashville Arts Magazine. Profiled in the Sunday Telegraph ROCK'S ROYAL PHOTOGRAPHER; How did Alan Messer, an upstart 'snapper' from Kent, become a friend and confidant to some of music's biggest names? By Alex Hannaford (available in the Misplaced Pages Library). Seems to be plenty of coverage of his photos off and online, another example https://eu.tennessean.com/picture-gallery/entertainment/music/2014/05/18/photographer-alan-messer-plans-book-on-johnny-cash/9249599/ Piecesofuk (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep - It is clear that he is a notable rock photographer. I've improved the article referencing, adding citations to the Sunday Telegraph, Nashville Arts Magazine (per Piecesofuk's research above), and to USA Today. Meets WP:GNG, The article can be improved, but it should not be deleted. Netherzone (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep under WP:GNG. Noted this was nominated 9 minutes after the article was created. A proper WP:BEFORE should look at sources that exist, not just what is currently in the article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. Liz 00:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

List of compositions by Lou Harrison

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

Does not appear to warrant a split from Lou Harrison and could easily be merged into his article; the size of the list is fairly small hence not really in need of a list. – Meena • 21:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Lists. – Meena • 21:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Merge to Lou Harrison as a new section in his article. (Technically, this would be a revert to the state of affairs before June 24.) Having this list at Harrison's article seems sufficient to me. I agree with the nominator that the split is not necessary, especially since there seems to be a lack of sources that assess Harrison's works in list form. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Harrison was astoundingly prolific, and the list is potentially expandable to very considerable length. There is certainly no lack of sources, Von Gunden's Music of Lou Harrison having a bulky appendix. I don't see a clear guideline at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classical music, but why would this case be different from featured articles like Percy_Grainger#Music?Sparafucil (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep, do not merge. I am fairly unconvinced by the nominator's rationale, which does not cite any guidelines or policy. The rather subjective 'the size of the list is fairly small', fails to convince me when the list in question is 100+ works. Thus, I don't think a list of this many entries belongs in a general biography article for WP, so having a different article seems much more appropriate. Aza24 (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to type out a distinct policy for my vote, but there are several that are relevant here. Especially WP:NLIST saying that a list topic must be notable in its own right beyond serving as a collection of things; plus WP:NOTCATALOG saying that WP tries to avoid a bare list of items with no surrounding context on why they should be laid out in list form. The moral of this story is that the whole must be greater than the sum of the parts. In conclusion, this gentlemen created a lot of compositions. That's not particularly notable when his existing biographical article already describes his long and successful career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Both articles are not very small, hence the WP:SPINOUT/WP:SPINOFF was reasonable. Maybe more than size alone, WP:UNDUE was a consideration. Also, let's not start an AfD about every decision someone makes or an argument about every dissenting opinion someone expresses. There is much more gain to be made in the article space! gidonb (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep, do not merge per comment above. Sparafucil (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Reasonable WP:SPINOFF and WP:SIZESPLIT per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. Consensus was that the broader topic of a Top Gun franchise is notable. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Top Gun (franchise)

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

Literally nothing has changed about it as a franchise that wasn’t already in the world when the Top Gun (film series) article was discussed in 2019. Like, even through the pandemic, there’s not much if any supplemental media, like video games, TV series, or even something like Battle at Big Rock or the Dominion prologue to bolster franchise status. There hasn’t been a Top Gun video game since 2012. Maverick had nothing surrounding it, it’s its own little island and while another sequel might earn the series franchise status, it would not have quick enough turnaround for this article to be sustained without at least one deletion. See also Talk:Top Gun#Requested move 28 June 2022 for aligning reasoning CreecregofLife (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 1. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep: Multiple films, soundtracks, corresponding singles, video games, and cultural impact meet the standards for a franchise. A franchise is an expansion of the original media, well the Top Gun franchise is an expansion of the original film. It meets the standard of a franchise. This is why it is a page about the franchise including music and video games, and not just a page about the film series. I agree that if the page were titled "Top Gun (film series)", it would not be a suitable page, but "Top Gun (franchise)" is inclusive towards all related and future media to Top Gun, which is deserving of a page. Zvig47 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, and Video games. Spiderone 18:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep While there are only 2 films in the franchise there are a massive amount of games that need a series page, this franchise page can function as the landing page for both. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Per Zxcvbnm. Timur9008 (talk) 11:42 , 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep per Zvig47 LockzZ (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep: Notable franchise.DavidEfraim (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep: From strictly a film perspective, this is among the most famous movie franchises in history – has significant cultural impact not only on pilots/aviation or military communities but also on broader American culture. Exceedingly well-known and well-loved and among the highest-grossing franchises ever. Slowtationjet (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete - per nomination. BilCat (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment This seems like it will just be a WP:CONTENTFORK. ― Kaleeb18_Caleb 23:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete - Per Nom, BilCat. Wait for the hattrick (if it comes) then it'll be more of a franchise. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep as sufficient sources discuss the two movies, the 1983 story, and video games. There is even a lawsuit over who owns the series. Pikavoom 08:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak Keep- Per Zxcvbnm. Two films, soundtracks, and several video games are all right. While there hasn't be a new one since 2012, right now it's borderline notable to me. VickKiang (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I have to say the no video game since 2012 argument is very weak, as notability is not temporary. The The Naked Gun (franchise) has been dead entirely since 2012, that's not cause for deletion. It's also pretty obvious we'll see new video games coming sometime. There's already coverage like this and an expansion pack for Flight Simulator. Even without the probably coming games, there's over twenty years of game releases. Pikavoom 09:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I could kind of see the argument, but IMO it isn't worthy of deletion. Many thanks for your reply! VickKiang (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep per Zvig47.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 15:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Since there are a large number of video games connected with the 2 films we clearly have grounds for arguing that there is indeed a media franchise here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

RouteNote

AfDs for this article:

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

After multiple declines of Draft:RouteNote, the article was created on the mainspace. No indication of WP:CORPDEPTH. Does not appear to meet WP:NCOMPANY. Brief mentions in Billboard and The Indian Express are not enough to establish notability. Hitro talk 06:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Hitro talk 06:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I tagged the previous version of this mainspace article, one of which was that it was substantially similar to a third-party wiki. While this probably isn't copyright violation since the source is CC-BY-SA 3.0, I should note the continued similarity between the current version of this article as well as the draft to that same website. Someone should look into this. —twotwofourtysix 09:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete Indeed significantly and confidently fails WP:CORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete No real SIGCOV to speak of, so fails CORP by a significant margin. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable independent sources. Fabiobengario (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Boneless Children Foundation

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

An unsigned and apparently non-notable band. The article, created by Davidsophia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same name as a band member) was previously PROD deleted as The Boneless Children Foundation (same content, created by same author). This version was nominated for WP:PROD in 2019, but that was removed with hopes of more references, but none have been forthcoming. The band appears to be unsigned, to have produced only self-published work, to have met with minimal chart success, and to consist of members who aren't themselves notable. Reliable independent coverage appears limited to a few minutes of radio play, some "what's on" local listings, and 3 words in a newspaper blog. I can't find any evidence of further notability or substantial independent coverage, and we've been asking for that for 13 years. So I think this squarely fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, and should not be in Misplaced Pages. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete. I was the PROD-nominator back in 2019 and I've literally been meaning to AfD this ever since. Nominator found the same amount of sources I did back in 2019, best described with the technical term "fuck-all". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Weak delete. Sources are fairly unimpressive, for the most part. I was able to find one newspaper reference ("Killing My Lobster pop!". The San Francisco Examiner. San Francisco, California. 2004-02-23. p. 11. Retrieved 2022-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.</ref>). A brief mention in the NYT does seem relevant. Overall, it doesn't seem like there is much to work with, but if someone were to WP:HEY the article I would certainly change my mind. jp×g 05:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was merge to Sweetwater Sound. ✗plicit 12:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Sweetwater Studios

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

Non-notable recording studio which fails WP:GNG. The sources in the article (and those additionally available online) either include passing mentions of the recording studio, or are not independent (interview based, client portfolio, press releases etc), or are blogs. I found no sources that could be considered WP:SIGCOV. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Merge to Sweetwater Sound: I found enough mentions in Google Books and an article in Music Connection that justify its inclusion in the encyclopedia (alongside what is already cited in the article). However, I don't think it has enough justification to be split from its parent page. Merge what is useful and make it a redirect. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Merge or Keep the available sources are not so poor to delete a 40 years company. --95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Merge to Sweetwater Sound, I agree with above, not enough sources meet NCORP for this topic so merging makes sense. HighKing 21:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

2Meka Diaz

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO; WP:GNG - no coverage of this "rapper, actress, songwriter and activist" on offer, sources are all incidental. No notability offered for any of these roles, no chart position for BMS or any other recording. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works", that's a straight 'no', right there. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nom, mostly trivial mentions, no charted singles. Oaktree b (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete - She has appeared as a guest rapper on several tracks by more famous people and as a supporting actress in productions also featuring more famous people, but she is only ever described as present in the credits. The article has a lot of citations, but several do not mention her at all and are instead about her collaborators, and those that do list her are either brief credits or hyped up publicity statements. I can find nothing reliable about her career in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Ehsan K. Matoori

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO created by SPA, very little content/context on offer, very little sourcing on offer, either - and what there is, is largely tangential to the subject. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Iran. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Red Allen. Liz 03:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Red Allen, Kid Ory & Jack Teagarden at Newport

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

Appears not to meet Misplaced Pages's notability guideline for albums. Barring the two references; one of which is for the label and the other is an Allmusic review; i found no other references for this release. The helper5667 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The helper5667 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete as WP:XY.Redirect to Red Allen. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE aside from AllMusic. SBKSPP (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Red Allen, as bandleader who played on all the tracks. There is original coverage in Billboard, as well as brief (brief) mentions in the usual guides, like Larkin, and jazz histories. Caro7200 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I haven't thought of that. That should do as well. SBKSPP (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 04:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Liz 04:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hans Heller

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

Only source here is a YouTube video. A BEFORE search doesn't turn up much, and definitely not enough for notability to be established. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 06:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 06:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep Once again a very lacking WP:BEFORE although this may have been hindered by inaccuracies in the article (Heller's full name, date of birth etc were wrong). There are also many discrepancies in sources about Heller - I've seen three different DoBs in sources and a New York Times article talks about him being interned in France in 1940 despite moving to the US in 1938. Regardless of this, he received an obituary in The New York Times as well as an entry in Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. An NYT obit and listing in a major encyclopaedic work (now added with other sources to the article) are enough to pass GNG. @Mako001: do you want to withdraw the nom to lighten the admin load? Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
@Vladimir.copic: Are you totally sure you have the correct Hans Heller? There is more than one Hans Heller who was a composer, but one died in Berlin and the other in Queens. This one died in Berlin. I'd like to confirm this before withdrawing the nom, I did find stuff for Hans Heller, but for the other one. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I think I’ve got confused here. There seem to be two Hans Hellers who were composers with similar lives and died in the same year. The article is now a confusion of the two. It looks to me that Hans Hermann Israel Heller does not meet GNG but Hans Ewald Heller does meet GNG. Not sure the best way to proceed now. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
@Vladimir.copic: Probably pull everything you'd added about Hans E. Heller to a new draft or article about Hans Ewald Heller and delete this one? This would avoid (inadvertently) hijacking the article. I'd agree that Hans Ewald Heller seems to be notable, but since this was originally about Hans H.I. Heller, it should be deleted. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Amending my vote to Delete. Previous vote was due to confusion with Hans Ewald Heller. I cannot find significant coverage that justifies GNG for Hans Hermann Israel Heller. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 06:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete - I think Vladimir.copic has cleared things up, and thanks to him for developing the new article for Hans Ewald Heller. As for this Hans Heller, he has an interesting story if it's true, but I suspect that the article was an attempt to promote the recent musicology effort to rediscover his long-lost music. The problem is that the rest of the world has not noticed, and until that happens it is an esoteric project without encyclopedic value here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Luis Bacqué

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

Although they are reliable, not a single one of the references actually discusses Bacqué in any prose. They're all just references that verify his credits. Without actual content about Bacqué, they don't meet WP:SIGCOV. I didn't locate any SIGCOV sources on a search, either - just single line "he produced this" credits in articles about other peoples' albums. Without SIGCOV, he doesn't meet WP:GNG, so this article should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and New York. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete Although there are sources out there, we're very much in interview or passing mention territory which is, as we know, insufficient to sate the appetite of the fell Gods of WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete - He's a longtime studio pro with an extensive resume, but the nature of his job means that he is usually only listed in credits for other people's works and he gets an occasional interview in occupational publications. He apparently won a "Global Music Award" but that ceremony never seems to get much coverage either. Props to him for his successful career behind the scenes, but he does not have enough significant and reliable coverage in his own right to justify an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Amanda Yiyen

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

No evidence that subject meets WP:NMUSICIAN. Created by SPA. – Ploni (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Taiwan. Ploni (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Yu, Shuhan 俞姝含 (2017-06-05). "台灣女音樂家吳苡嫣開拓新領域" . World Journal (in Chinese). Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via PressReader.
  This article profiles the subject. The article notes: "舞台時，吳苡嫣曾說在地球上生活要找到生命的主題，聽心聲、做自己，聽心聲、做自己，34歲的她日前發行第三張個人專輯「地球旅程，第二輯：時間故事」，結合古典". From Google Translate: "On the stage, Wu Yiyan once said that living on earth should find the theme of life, listen to the voice, be yourself, listen to the voice, be yourself. The 34-year-old recently released her third solo album "Earth Journey, Series II: Time Story", combined with classical."
2. Zhao, Ruogen 趙若亘 (July 2017). "萬眾光芒集一身，時尚爵士創作才女。吳苡嫣，Amanda Wu" . Sino Monthly (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
  The article extensively profiles the subject.
3. Liu, Guanyou 劉冠佑 (2015-03-04). "「DJ音樂盒」推薦台灣優秀音樂人創作演出的作品" (in Chinese). Radio Taiwan International. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Amanda Wu has shown her talents in different fields since she was a child. She has won the championship in piano/oboe/singing/electronic organ competitions. Continue to show amazing brilliant results. When he was admitted to the university, he was the only one who was admitted to the National Taipei University of the Arts with a high score as a major in oboe. At the same time, he was admitted to Fu Jen Catholic University with the first place in the recommended screening test."
4. Leah (2017-07-22). "An Interview With Taiwanese Classical Jazz Artist, Amanda Wu!". Allaccess.com. Archived from the original on 2022-06-25. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
  The article provides 189 words of non-interview coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Born in Taiwan, Amanda started her music career at an impressively young age. As a child prodigy, she composed her first piece at just 7 years old. At ages 8, 9, and 12 she represented Taiwan internationally, performing her original compositions in Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand. By age 19, Amanda was the champion of the international piano competition organized by Montreal International Music Camp Canada. Amanda has also been a TED x Taipei speaker & performer."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Amanda Wu (traditional Chinese: 吳苡嫣; simplified Chinese: 吴苡嫣) to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 21:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep - The subject meets WP:GNG alone based on the sources Cunard listed above. She meets WP:MUSICBIO Criteria #1 easily and arguably also #9 with the Montreal International Music Camp Canada mention above, which from what I've found online certainly seems to qualify as a "major music competition." - Aoidh (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep in view of the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion by Cunard that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Big Drum Bonanza

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

WP:BEFORE yields no reliable sources and mainly irrelevant news articles when searched in news on Google. I have a feeling there might be some sources out there but I cannot find any. Maybe this should be merged with Thomas Lang. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Organizations, and California. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This event has existed for 10 years and has been written about in every drumming magazine in the world multiple times. The sources which cover it (i.e. Drums & Percussion, Rhythem, Drumhead, Drum! magazine, etc.,) are global publications, and it is typical of these magazines to withhold print copy from online because it devalues content.

This event has existed as a "redirect" to Thomas Lang's page for a decade because he was the host. He has no affiliation with the event other than as a host and a performer. The event deserves its own page. Unsure what you mean by "irrelevant" news articles. The news articles and announcements which exist online after most of the drumming publications folded in the past few years are the ones which remain accessible to cite. Qwertymerty3456 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources, articles and image added. Qwertymerty3456 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't found enough independent and reliable coverage of the show. WP:CORPDEPTH: the depth of coverage is not sufficient. In my opinion, any worthwhile show needs a significant amount of reviews and news. But this fact does not apply Big Drum Bonanza. --Mestrossino (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. Liz 03:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Aarght Records

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

Not notable Australian local specialist punk record label, now defunct. Fails WP:GNG; WP:ORG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete could not find indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Weak Keep The Vice article is half ok, the other half is an interview. I also found This.Zeddedm (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep The coverage's enough to scrape by along with enough artists to suggest importance via WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep Based on the Vice article mentioned and the label's roster. The label's releases get mentioned in Maximum Rocknroll a lot too. Jimmyjrg (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep based on 4meter4's finding of reference in specialist encyclopedia. ~~Delete~~ This is a company therefore the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP rather than NMUSIC which only applies to artists, bands, albums, and songs. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, etc - these references fail ORGIND.
- This from somethingyousaid.com arguably fails as a reliable source as blogs are considered self-published. Additionally, it is a transcript of an interview with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from Vice Media also appears to be based on an interview and information provided to the journalist and is focused on Rich Stanley rather than the topic company. For me it does not contain enough in-depth information on the company nor does it contain sufficient opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company.
- This, this and this either contain information about an album or information about a gig with no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
- This from Beat doesn't even mention the company and has no information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
- This next from Beat mentioned by Zeddedm above has two mentions-in-passing of the company and provides information about the topic company's annual music show. Fails CORPDEPTH

We need to see a reference where the journalist provides their own "Independent Content" about the company and it needs to be in-depth. Nothing so far meets NCORP criteria. HighKing 13:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the significant coverage in Vice Media and Beat, there is significant coverage of Aarght Records in Ian McFarlane (2017). "Aarght Records". The Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop, Second Edition. Third Stone Press. ISBN 9780995385603.. If a specialist encyclopedia is covering this topic, we should too per WP:5P1.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment never seen a better illustration for why WP:CORP is not the right yardstick for labels. 4meter4's discovery of an encyclopedia article about this label indicates that we, an encyclopedia, should have an article about it. Chubbles (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I totally agree although I'm also not sure what notability criteria you'd want to include for labels. HighKing 11:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Woah there, The ISBN of The Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop Edition 2 is actually 978-0995385603 - and it's a 544-page book about the Australian music scene (a relatively esoteric one, at that) that's been titled as such - it's a naming conceit, not Britannica or anything. Just to get the 'record' straight... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That’s not an accurate assessment. You are correct that it isn’t Britannica (which is a general encyclopedia). However, it is an academic reference work that is structured, researched, and referenced in the way that specialized encyclopedias are structured (and by a notable academic in the field; we even have a wiki page Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop on this work), . In fact, that’s what it is, a specialized encyclopedia. WP:5P1 states, “ Misplaced Pages combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias.” Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Liz 23:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The Four Hundred (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article seems to be trying to cover two different incarnations of the same band, but I don't think either of them is notable. I can't find any significant coverage of their original incarnation as the Four Hundred, and the only source in the article is a blog post. The Journal Sentinel article on Light Music is at least one source providing some semblance of significant coverage, but the other references either aren't independent of the band or aren't significant, and I couldn't find any additional ones. (All the links are dead now, but they're archived in the Internet Archive.) I just don't see this passing WP:BAND. TheCatalyst31 04:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Wisconsin. TheCatalyst31 04:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence of reliable sources found, no evidence of a possible WP:BAND pass. Ten Pound Hammer • 23:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete - As The Four Hundred they achieved nothing but a few minor blog mentions and low-on-the-bill festival gigs with more famous acts playing later. Therefore the article can be deleted under this name. However, after they broke up and some of the members regrouped as Light Music, that band received some pretty solid newspaper coverage in their city, e.g. , , . Light Music might actually qualify for a WP article if anyone wants to create it, but that can be a separate endeavor some other time because they are two different bands with a few shared memebers. The article being discussed here is about The Four Hundred and they are not notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Time to close after 3+ weeks. Obviously, there won't be more people participating in this discussions so I'm going to close this as No Consensus. This can always be returned to AFD at another time. Liz 02:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Georg Leib

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

Very few references, does not appear to follow notability guidelines Gtag10 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gtag10 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Weak keep. He has a biographical entry in this academic reference work: Werner Ebnet (2016). "Leib, Georg". Sie haben in München gelebt: Biografien aus acht Jahrhunderten. Allitera Verlag. p. 363. ISBN 9783869069111. That's the only SIGCOV I could find, but I do think it indicates that the subject has sustaining notability given that a 2016 reference work is writing about him more than a hundred years after his death. I also think its likely that there are more German language references on this person and that SIGCOV could be met if better searchers than myself participate (searching in German isn't a strong skill set of mine).4meter4 (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 12:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Halloweens

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

NME has actually written about this collaboration twice, with another interview published in 2020. However, that's about it - no other coverage for what appears to be a relatively non-notable side project from two members of a notable group. "Written about non-trivially by multiple reliable sources." Fails WP:GNG; WP:BAND. Already amply covered, BTW, in The Vaccines' article. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep (but expand and improve). They have indeed been discussed by NME twice: a short intro at is already cited in the article, but they also have a much more robust feature piece at (not currently cited). It appears that they got some reliable media notice because their sound is quite different than that of their full-time band. They have another reliable profile at and various reviews and intros at , , , among others. The current state of the WP article does not reflect their media coverage thus far. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Eurovision Song Contest 1958. TigerShark (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Solange Berry

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

Very little information about the subject appear to be available. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO and the subject falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Weak Delete all I find is this article, where they comment on notable performances . I imagine there are more sources, I can't see any. French wiki article has Eurovision and what appears to be a blog as sources. not much help there either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 17:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Eurovision Song Contest 1958 is a potential redirect target. ~Kvng (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Not all singers are notable and the case sticks with this one.`~HelpingWorld~` 06:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Eurovision Song Contest 1958. She took part in that contest; the 1960 edition was only a selection process that she did not win. Grk1011 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Halsey discography. TigerShark (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Collabs

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

Not notable per WP:NALBUMS. The EP is a compilation of mostly existing tracks. All of the information is about individual songs or taken from other projects like Manic. There is very little on information pertaining to this project itself. Notability is not inherited, the collection did not chart. There's little information beyond the track listing. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 22:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to Halsey discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 17:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to Halsey discography per SBKSPP. ─ The Aafī 16:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Consensus that this should not have its own article. Suggested that there might be some value to keep as a redirect, but as OGAE Song Contest already exists as a redirect, it seems to have no real value. TigerShark (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

OGAE Song Contest 2019

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

Fan contest that fails several notability guidelines, including WP:GNG. A standalone article is not required, the winner is already covered on OGAE and the remaining songs and places are not notable and could be considered WP:FANCRUFT. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete. The fan club itself is notable, however this "alternative to Eurovision" contest appears to be just a fun yearly event for them. Neither the event nor its outcome receive substantial coverage in independent secondary sources. Grk1011 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Redirect to OGAE as WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I believe this article falls under point 8 of WP:DEL-REASON, and specifically under WP:GNG for "significant coverage" given it is an online-only fan contest that will never receive enough coverage to warrant its own Misplaced Pages article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  Sure but see WP:CHEAP ~Kvng (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  - True but also WP:COSTLY. It's not a subject that is ever going to be notable enough to require its own article, so actually keeping this as a redirect may serve very little purpose, especially as anyone typing in "OGAE Song Contest" will find the parent redirect as an option before this article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    There is already a OGAE Song Contest redirect and I am now convinced that is sufficient for searching purposes. I still believe there is an WP:ATD case here as this is material is not entirely worthless as at least some of it could be included in the OGAE article. Leaving OGAE Song Contest 2019 as a redirect is not going to harm anyone's search experience and may encourage further improvement to OGAE in the future. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Music Proposed deletions

Categories: