Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 9: Line 9:
==Bands and musicians==
==Bands and musicians==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Band_Famous_(2nd_nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ElDeyma}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ElDeyma}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kornkan_sutthikoses}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kornkan_sutthikoses}}

Revision as of 10:11, 16 January 2015

Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Bands and musicians|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Bands and musicians. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch
Related deletion sorting


Bands and musicians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 04:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Band Famous

AfDs for this article:
Band Famous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Heavily WP:REFBOMBed; almost all sources are passing mentions or have nothing to do with the band. The band does not appear to meet any criterion of WP:NMUSIC, with no major label albums, charted singles, or notable appearances. Last AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation after two relists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________

I have been watching this page. Not only was this group discussed significantly over live broadcast internationally, but the group was also thoroughly discussed on a radio program through National Public Radio / Minnesota Public Radio. It was not a trivial mention as one user noted. Also, verified Twitter accounts are credible sources according to Wikipedia Verifiability terms. Slug of Atmosphere, a pioneer of hip-hop, who also has a record label and is renowned worldwide, publicly tweeted his support for this group, which directly relates to the article. It is therefore a verifiable source. In addition to the radio broadcast with NPR/MPR, there was a feature written on Minnesota Public Radio 89.3FM The Current Local Current Blog, by Jay Gabler, which is also a verifiable source. It is a blog of a nation-wide radio station.

To quote the user above, TenPoundHammer, "None of the sources that do mention the band even in passing are independent." How is National Public Radio not an independent source? How is Slug of Atmosphere not an independt source? Also 89.3FM The Current (The Local Show included) is independently funded by the listeners, which is about as independent as one can get.

Taken directl;y from Wikipedia:Verifiability page:

"Newspaper and magazine blogs Policy shortcut: WP:NEWSBLOG Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below."

(User talk:avenueofwarcraft) — avenueofwarcraft (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

________________________

Someone is clearly trolling on this group's Wikipedia, or I should say some people. I'm sharing the references, which I've thoroughly examined myself. For some reason these sources are not staying up in the references as they should. To reiterate what avenueofwarcraft above me said, according to Wikipedia's Verifiability page, the sources that I'm sharing below are *independent* and are verifiable. The blog is from a national radio station, by credible, independent writer, Jay Gabler. Not only was a very nice feature written on the band by Gabler, but they were discussed on The Local Show on 89.3FM The Current by Gabler and David Campbell (radio host), which is broadcast nationwide. It directly relates to the article and the band's credibility, and it highlights the Kickstarter they attempted. They've also had multiple interviews beyond these that one can research, but I personally feel these sources are the most credible and should be included as verifiable sources on the group's Wikipedia page:

Also here is the tweet mentioned above by Slug of hip-hop group Atmosphere, and it directly relates to the article per Wikipedia standards of using a verified twitter account's tweet as a verifiable reference:

He, along with Greg Deocampo and others are among some of the band's very well-known and respectable supporters. Tell me how these three sources that keep being removed from the article are considered trivial? I think those who see it that way are mistaken or at the very least did not take a look at any of the above links.

All users Wikihounding or doing disruptive editing are being/will be reported.

(User talk:WeAreAllStars)

  • @WeAreAllStars: To answer your questions: Twitter accounts are viable references in certain cases, but they should not be used excessively as sources. I see no point where NPR is used as a source. Local radio station blogs are not reliable sources because they are self published. The links from The Current are the only sources that seem reliable, but only one publication so far does not transfer into notability. Nominating a page for deletion twice is not by any stretch of the imagination "wikihounding"; I nominated it twice only because the first nomination failed to reach a consensus, and it's ludicrous for you to think that a deletion nomination is on par with harassment. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS to learn what constitutes a reliable source; and please consult WP:BAND and tell me which criterion, if any, you think Band Famous meets. So far I was unable to find anything beyond the Current articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

____

@TenPoundHammer: The tweet by Slug of Atmosphere on the verified Atmosphere twitter account was not used excessively, it was mentioned once and cited properly and it relates directly to the article and yet it has been deleted repeatedly, along with the verifiable sources of The Local Current radio show, and the feature written by JAY GABLER of Minnesota Public Radio, which is a subdivision of National Public Radio, and 89.3FM The Current has listeners nationwide and is completely independent. The blog was not self-published, it was a legitimately published feature on the band that should not be written off as "a trivial mention". Also the comment about CNET that a band member put it up there? That is not the case, in case you aren't aware, apps and other software for download are added to that site by administrators of CNET. The band didn't even publicly announce the release of the app they built until June 13th, and yet it was up on CNET on June 2nd. It doesn't even make logical sense that the band would have published it there before they went public with the launch of their app.

Regarding the consensus of the initial nomination for deletion, it was closed, and the article was up for good, although sources continued to be deleted via disruptive editing, and you once more nominated it for deletion. It wasn't the fact that it was nominated for deletion that led me to find it viable as harassment, but see Examples of disruptive editing:

1. Is tendentious <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing>: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.

  • Articles from independent and reliable sources continually are removed, such as

the following three sources, which according to Wikipedia’s terms are all verifiable:

http://blog.thecurrent.org/2014/11/music-body-painting-web-development-meet-the-band-famous/ http://www.thecurrent.org/programs/local-show/2014/11/23

  • Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their

web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Jay Gabler’s feature on the band therefore is a verifiable source, as published on Minnesota Public Radio’s 89.3FM The Current Local Current Blog.

https://twitter.com/atmosphere/status/522718495986155520

  • Per Wikipedia terms of Verifiability, a tweet by a verified twitter account if it

directly relates to the articles is accepted as a verifiable source.

(User talk:WeAreAllStars)

_____________________________

_____________________________

TenPoundHammer and Edward321, do please stop erasing facts. I am not the author of this article, I am merely trying to uphold Wikipedia terms in acknowledging the fact that disruptive editing was taking place. I'm pleased to see that reliable verifiable sources have ceased to be removed and I hope it will remain that way. Thank you Drmies for your input, and I have tidied up what I was trying to say. Also, apologies to @TenPoundHammer: as I see that I did in fact mistakenly accuse you of doing repeated deletions of reliable sources, after looking at the history again I see it was another user after all. Please accept my apologies.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ElDeyma

ElDeyma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Sources are all Facebook or Youtube bar the odd appearance on a self-published compilation and a local radio station. Absolutely nothing else in the way of reliable sources out there. Has already been speedied once as El Deyma. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a charitable person, and wading in with a WP:CSD#A7 blunderbuss gives WP:GARAGE band writers the feeling we're all horrible ogres who delete stuff. While I optimistically hope the 7 days' grace for an AfD is enough to either salvage the article, or convince the creator there's no real benefit to having it. Either way, it's a better option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 11:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kornkan sutthikoses

Kornkan sutthikoses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR.. non-notable JMHamo (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I seeing no citations throughout the entirety of this article? If this article is to remain it needs to have cited references, and the references at the very end of the article do not meet Wikipedia's terms for Reliability or Verifiable sources. If cited references that are beyond social media cannot be implemented, then I say delete. WeAreAllStars (talk) 9:28, 16 January 2015 (EST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Simmonds

Lucy Simmonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR.. Does not have significant roles in multiple notable stage performances. JMHamo (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Not Fail WP:NACTOR..Had 2 Significant Roles at 2 seperate Occasions in a Massive production does count as multiple. And Does have Large Following. Mywikinameis(talk) 10:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say if it meets criteria of notability. The mention of her brother being in a music video doesn't seem to justify her own Wikipedia page, but then again she did play two significant roles... Thoughts? I'm on the border of saying delete but maybe there is a reference I overlooked. W.A.A.S. (talk) 9:41, 16 January 2015 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeAreAllStars (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Diamonds

Funky Diamonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC. This article has been tagged for notability for almost seven years. The article's only reference is not primarily about the artist. BenLinus1214talk 02:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak Keep two albums on major record labels (Sony?) so may slide past with WP:NMUSIC . There are some very weak hits on google books, mostly german language. Also German and ?Czech language WP pages offer some (weak) support, although it looks like the equivalent of an AfD occurred on the German WP and the article was strongly considered for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bjelleklang

Bjelleklang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Someone created the page Bjelleklang and it's nominated for deletion as a BLP without any sources. So far I can't find anything that really shows that he's notable enough for an entry. on Wikipedia ........ therefore the article does not meet Wikipedia Notability guidelines Samat lib (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No votes in your own nomination. Geschichte (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moses devoss

Moses devoss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia articles about musicians must satisfy the relevant requirements for inclusion: to get their own article, a musician must receive independent coverage in reliable sources, or demonstrate significance by winning major awards, being played in national rotation, etc. My searches (web, books, newspaper archive, Ugandan top music lists) found no independent coverage, only informal bios written by the artist himself. I propose that the article be deleted until more reliable coverage appears. FourViolas (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Article has been improved above my expectations (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Vincent

Sonny Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First off, fails WP:BLP for lack of sources. Second, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO (again, mainly due to lack of sources). Third, article is written like a biography instead of an encyclopedia entry. It will be easier to start from a blank slate rather than hack and slash what's currently there to shoehorn it into conforming to Wikipedia's standards. In other words, BLOWITUP. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT it. Unless it's improved before the AfD is over, the current COI editing, lack of sources, and improper tone would make me think it's better to start over from a clean slate - when an editor with no COI writes about him. — kikichugirl speak up! 00:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this might be a sockpuppet or possibly a meatpuppet. No contributions except to this question. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 22:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I object to the claims this entry should be considered for deletion.

There appear to be no lack of sources. There are multiple citations throughout the entry. All sources meet Wikipedia's criteria as acceptable for citation. In addition to 25 other citation sources, the subject is being used as a self-published source, meaning specifically the subject's personal website is a credible source for citation. The self-published website meets Wikipedia's criteria for acceptability because it is not self-serving, does not involve claims about third parties, does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, there is no reason to doubt its authenticity, and (MOST IMPORTANTLY) the Wikipedia entry does not rely on it as a primary source.

Also, as to the claim of Conflict of Interest, this entry does not promote self interest; there are no sales links or tour dates. The entry accurately and dispassionately outlines the artist's life and work. The POV is neutral, the information contained in the entry is verifiable, and original research is not presented or cited. It appears the burden of evidence has been met by the editors of this entry.

As to the claim of this entry reading like a biography, here is a clip from Wikipedia's entry on that topic: "a biography presents a subject's life story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experience, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality." This entry does not present the subject's life story and there are no intimate details or discussion of personality. The entry in question reads more like a CV and contains only verifiable information regarding the artist's professional work. In fact, I would offer that most encyclopedia entries contain much more personal information (i.e. early life, marriage, children, controversy, etc) than the one we are debating here. Furthermore, biographies of living persons are acceptable entries. Wikipedia's guidelines dictate biographies need to be written in a conservative and respectful manner with consideration of the subject's privacy. This entry does not include contentious material and makes no specious claims. The subject's privacy is not violated.

If additional citations are suggested, please respond with specific content. It is easy to make claims more citations are needed and simple to cite an entire wikipedia guideline page as support, however, based on the seriousness of the suggestions to delete the page, it seems actual examples with specific support are called for here. Thank you. Silverline72 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)silverline72 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverline72 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silverline72: Please read the Articles for Deletion process. The "calls to delete" that you request be stopped do not exist. This is a single discussion that will last for at least 7 days. At the end of the 7 days an administrator will determine if a consensus has been reached, and either keep or delete the article based on the consensus of editors. If the administrator does not feel a consensus is reached they will let the discussion continue until such time as a clear consensus exists and then action will be taken. No amount of insisting that the process stop will be successful. Once an AfD has been started, it will be allowed to reach its conclusion based strictly on the policy. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 03:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wtwilson3: Hi Bill. Thank you for the advice. I have stated my objection. Do i understand correctly that I also need to remove a deletion tag? If so, would you explain how to do that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverline72 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 16 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
No, as stated in the deletion tag, "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed". Once a decision is reached, if the result is "keep" then the tag may be removed. But not before. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 15:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Improve — Bad writing in and of itself is not cause for deletion. The article needs improvements in tone and writing style, but it's not so horrible it needs to be nuked. Some ref improvement has already happened (although some are to primary sources). I just don't agree that this is a lost cause. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 16:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly needs some improvement in the writing and format, but putting it up for deletion based on a lack of verifiable sources doesn't seem to hold any merit. There are bountiful references, many of which do seem to fit with Wikipedia guidelines. Keep improving it and keep it up. W.A.A.S. (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2015 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeAreAllStars (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leland Grant

Leland Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Only refs are the subject, IMDB and links to other Wikipedia articles. EBY (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More sources have been found and the article is now standalone. millerkatiej(talk) 13:42, 16 January 2015 (CT)

  • Here's the issue - except for a blurb in the Songwriter magazine that states he was a finalist in something, there isn't any notability factors for this subject: his music hasn't been reviewed, he hasn't been critiqued, neither the subject or his music has been considered by a separate reliable source to have made a notable impact. Pointing to original sources like Amazon, or crowd-sourced like IMDB, or pointing to articles about OTHER people or projects and making the original research statement that "hey he was involved in this project and the PROJECT is notable, even if he isn't mentioned" does not meet WP:GNG. He worked with famous people, that does not make him notable unless what he DID with that person was notable - background singers, assistant producers, dancers all meet and work with famous people but they do not meet Wikipedia guidelines.EBY (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being a permanent member of a famous band does meet WP:NMUSIC but there aren't any WP:RS that I could find. Could you provide? EBY (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, being a member of a famous band does not meet the music notability guidelines. With respect to membership in bands, the criterion is "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles".(emphasis added) A Fine Frenzy, Mitchel Musso, Tiffany are all individual musicians. A reading to the Leland Grant article only notes one band, The LiNE. -- Whpq (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 19:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 04:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GRADES

GRADES (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Only released a few singles that didn't chart on the national charts. No references that go into any detail about him, except for the one in the article. That ref is an interview, so it doesn't count towards notability. Bgwhite (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (chinwag) @ 20:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep: Withdrawn by nominator (me) and no outstanding delete !votes. Everymorning talk 15:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Czech Philharmonic

South Czech Philharmonic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This orchestra lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources needed to establish that it is notable. The coverage of it online is quite limited, there being only 27 Google results, and those all appear to be passing mentions. E.g. this link is a bio of someone who performed with the South Czech Philharmonic, among other orchestras. Everymorning talk 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Hmm. I would think that a philharmonic orchestra would be notable simply by existing. They play a concert season every year and get coverage for that. Going to the Czech page and searching on their name "Jihočeská filharmonie" gets 11,000 hits (nominal, not actual). Via the Czech page and Google translate, here is one fairly in-depth story. And here is a story on their new hall. If they are getting a new concert hall built for them, they must be notable. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - pretty much exactly as above, Margin1522. Don't think this was a well thought through AfD nomination. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been convinced by Margin1522's arguments and am therefore going to withdraw this nomination. Everymorning talk 15:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. NORTH AMERICA1000 04:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan athavale

Meghan athavale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all sources are youtube videos that were self-published. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. A quick google search revealed there weren't any RS to support notability. ƬheStrikeΣagle 06:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've replaced/added to the references with a number of better sources: CTV News; CBC News; Manitoba Music; The Winnipeg Sun; Global News; and Backbone. Hopefully these are more reliable sources and satisfy Wikipedia's criteria.

I did have one issue when adding content: Meghan's participation at the G20 summit is documented here: http://www.examiner - dot - com/article/g20-young-entrepreneur-summit-30-canadians-will-be-there but the dite is on Wikipedia's blacklist for some reason. I will try to find another source for it; there didn't seem to be anything spammy about the source, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroll (talk • contribs) 13:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be being primarily edited by user Acroll, who I suspect is the Alistair Croll mentioned in this article as having an undisclosed relationship with the subject: https://newmediamanitoba.com/events/276/how-not-to-fail-with-alistair-croll 50.72.165.184 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's me. Not sure about undisclosed (am I supposed to disclose that? Don't most people who write entries have some relationship to the subject?) since my username is my real name.

Meg is a fairly notable entrepreneur in the Canadian technology scene, and I believe the references are legitimate news sources, all reasonably independent. If the criteria for an entry are notability and independent references I believe Meghan, and her work on things like education, entrepreneurship, and interactive media are sufficiently notable and independently verified.

Do you need other information to make a decision on this subject? I'm not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia so I'm not familiar with many of the tools and policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroll (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources do seem a bit spamy, but AFAICT are independent and reliable (newspaper articles, TV interviews). Most of the good ones were added after the AfD nom. That said, it feels like a paid-for bit of press (both our article and some of the sources). keep for now, but I'd suggest people involved read WP:COI and WP:SOCK Hobit (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (drone) @ 20:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Blue

AfDs for this article:
Alexis Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

SERIOUSLY!!! This **** of an article has existed for as long as it has???!!! This former "band" not only fails WP:NBAND, it EPICALLY fails NBAND. Not sure how any AfD could possibly have come to keep, yet evidently AfD #2 did keep after article was previously deleted at the first AfD and then almost immediately recreated. This is as strong a delete as I could possibly ever call for. Just gotta love the content under the 2010 section header, "the band posted an announcement to their website." :) Safiel (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. A farcical abomination, for sure. Still not notable and failing WP:NBAND, as pointed out below by Safiel. --The Theosophist (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sometimes a look at article history can be helpful. The article that was kept in January 2009 was much longer than the way it is now, and it actually had some sources. [1] It looks like the article was subjected to unconstructive deletions in 2014, and no one was around to fix it. That is not to say that the band is obviously notable, just that the current version isn't the one that we should be looking at. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per Arxiloxos, I've restored all the content from before the unconstructive deletions began in February 2014. This way, the article can be evaluated on its own merits rather than on what it was like after most of the content and sources were stripped out. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have gone through the reconstituted article and the links, at least the ones that still work. The band clearly fails all aspects of WP:NBAND from #2 to the end. The only chance for this band to pass through would be to satisfy point #1 of NBAND, which is multiple, non-trivial coverage in qualifying reliable sources. I believe that it clearly fails. Most of these links are trivial listings or mentions of "gigs" and several of the links are not reliable sources. I see nothing which would cause this band to satisfy WP:NBAND. Thus I will stick with my original delete position, though I will tone down my rhetoric from the nomination a bit. Safiel (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A mildly reluctant weak deleteNeutral (see below). HighBeam Research includes a couple of Liverpool papers, and this band's name turns up in some concert listings from 2007-2010, but nothing more substantial in those sources.[2] Google searches turned up a ton of blogs and listings like this, making it hard to be sure if there's something more substantial buried in the dross. There's a substantial interview [3] in a source called the Von Pip Musical Express (VPME), a bloggy site that may or may not be an RS (it shows up as a source in other Wikipedia articles and has been profiled in The Guardian [4], so maybe the author qualifies as some kind of expert in the area). In the last Afd, Paul Erik turned up a surprising bit of praise for this band in The Charleston Gazette--that's Charleston, West Virginia, and while the comment itself is just one sentence, the existence of something like this in an American daily newspaper does suggest that the band had wider notability than you'd expect from a run of the mill Scouse pub band. (The Gazette article is included in the HighBeam database, although for some reason it didn't come up in my HighBeam searches of the band's name. [5]) Overall it seems that we have local Merseyside band that had a run of local popularity and kept threatening to get bigger, but didn't. If someone else can turn up another decent substantial source or two, I'd reconsider.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The quote from the mentioned The Charleston Gazette article (in a "Top songs" subsection)
"5. "You Won't Get Much Sleep," Alexis Blue: This is a great, catchy indie pop track that pulls inspiration from other English bands like the Coral."
The writer of the article is Sarah Nason from George Washington High School.
Also available is a hometown piece. Cureton, Stephanie (26 September 2010), "Farewell gig for Wirral rockers Alexis Blue later this week", Wirral Globe
Most relevant quote may be
"Alexis Blue formed in 2005 while attending Mosslands School and quickly built up a strong fanbase thanks to their catchy numbers and regular appearances around Wirral and Liverpool."
Looks like they had some local popularity but never got bigger. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after looking through the sources the band appears to have "lost" some notability after their disbandment however since notability cannot be lost the prior AfD has some resonance. I was able to find this source and noticed it has other sources in its heyday that are not readily available due to overshadowing by a separate artist Alexi Blue. The band appears to pass WP:band on 5, 7, and 12. The band has released at least two albums hypothetical situations and a second album (Sir Ian)^3. The band had a prominent local following, and appeared on the television show Road to V Finals. Since our BLP and band notability requirements are heavily based on self promotion this would not apply due to their disbandment. Per prior AfD. Valoem talk contrib 21:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just releasing albums is not enough to pass WP:BAND, no indication any releases are on an important label. Whilst they had a local following there is no indication it's prominent, let alone "the most prominent of the local scene of a city". especially as Wirral is not a city. Appearing on a tv show does not satisfy WP:MUSIC#12. A thoroughly disingenuous !vote? duffbeerforme (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As stated on your AfD of Moxie Raia, such personal attacks are uncalled for we can disagree on subjects on Wikipedia. I've made my rational clearly and it is far from being disingenuous. Valoem talk contrib 03:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An unusually high percentage of the citations in this article are dead links. That doesn't mean they are invalid sources, because the articles they are citing could have been taken down in the last six years or so, but it would be nice if the supporters of this article could do something about all the dead link citations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "indie guitar rock coupled with lyrics" you say? No evidence this even comes close to meeting WP:MUSIC; while they might have had a few local fans and been a nice group of people, they clearly don't have the coverage needed to show notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I have found some additional sources, [6], [7], [8], second album and an interview here. Lankiveil can you please clarify how this does not pass WP:MUSIC? It appears to pass 5, 7, and 12 of WP:BAND. Per WP:NTEMP is band should remain notable even if many links are dead now due to their disbandment. Valoem talk contrib 02:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciation is due for Valoem's heroic efforts on behalf of this band. Regarding the new sources: the Skiddle writeup looks a lot like PR, although the reference to a Channel 4 broadcast has some interest. The Unsigned.com page isn't a sign of notability in itself, but the quotes from reviews in 3 countries, like the West Virginia newspaper above, could be suggestive of something a little bigger than a local pub band. The Wirrall News item does verify the existence of the album, but doesn't do much to get past "local popularity". I had already mentioned the last one, the VPME interview, in my comment above. I am still not convinced that this band surpasses the AfD threshhold usually applied to indie bands, but I wouldn't be bothered if this article were kept, and (if only for symbolic reasons) I've switched my !vote to "neutral".--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as an indie music fan myself I try to keep these bands whenever I think there is a sniff of notability, but I'm not seeing it here. Specifically, they don't meet #5 of WP:BAND as none of their music has been released on a major label or important indie label as far as I can tell. #7 doesn't apply because there is no reliable sources that describe them as such, and with respect to the Wallasey scene, it's not a large or important one. For #12, I presume you refer to their appearance on "Road to V", but they did not win the competition, nor were they the "featured subject", so that doesn't apply either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 04:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (chat) @ 20:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Quartarone

Claudio Quartarone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any reliable sources that meet WP:MUSIC, there is also a page on the Itlaian Wikipedia that also has no reliable sources. Maybe someone more familiar with Italian can establish WP:MUSIC, otherwise I think this should be deleted. War wizard90 (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7 (still not really an assertion of notability), g11 (article is promotional, and was created by apparent paid editor). NawlinWiki (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brannon Bates

AfDs for this article:
Brannon Bates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as an actor, director, musician, etc. Fails WP:GNG. (Deleted previously in 2005.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article also flagged for copyvios, editor appears to have attempted corrections but as such has lost a large amount of content aside from simple lists. Article was also previously deleted, possibly eligible for CSD under WP:G4 if information on the deleted version can be provided. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 22:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biography has been updated with links and bibliography but it is not complete. A "contents" section needs to be added as well as citing. Also, the image has been updated with the sharing license added. We are working on it, let us know what else we can do to help the process. 2602:30A:2CF0:1420:5524:C9A2:4D15:EA47 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see if there is enough information now to remove the flags at the top of the page. There is still a lot of work to be done cleaning up the page and "unreliable" scources need to be sifted and removed. But there should be enough there for the flags to be removed at this point. Let us know what else we can do if you see immediate needs and we will continue to polish the page. Chadpaul222 (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no WP:reliable sources listed as far as I can see. PR releases, store links, images, etc. don't qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better. The molestation section was removed. Was it against the guidelines or improper / offensive? Chadpaul222 (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was unsourced controversial material in a WP:BLP, against policy. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No significant roles in notable productions. Overly promotional, what's with all the stupid name dropping about his haircut? duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a worldwide trend. What have you done keyboard hero. Just delete the profile then but also delete all of the photos from your database permanently, if you have the authority to do that. Or can you just sit at your desk and make rude comments about people's work. Come to a show and let's talk about it. Chadpaul222 (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah come to a show Johnlamint2253 (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want this deleted now. The mods deleted all of the relevant biographical information. Wikipedia is begging for donations anyway, you won't even be around long enough for it to matter. Ever heard of the internet database? It's the new wikipedia. Delete all of the brannon bates photos as well if you can figure out how to do it. Enjoy life as a nerd. Chadpaul222 (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Static Union

Hyper Static Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (drone) @ 20:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A. G. Cook (Musician)

A. G. Cook (Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 02:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Diamond (Musician)

Hannah Diamond (Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Andy Hill (American composer). (non-admin closure)  - The Herald (here I am) 16:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hill (film music supervisor)

Andy Hill (film music supervisor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A.W. Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • This article is very different from article A.W. Hill, but are they about the same man? If so, text-merge them, and under what name? Or has one of the articles got an image of the wrong man? Or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename - Clearly the same person. The image is of the same guy, both articles point to awhill.net in the external links. Ghostrider51 is the creator of A.W. Hill. Derwydd23, whom I very strongly suspect of being a secondary account of Ghostrider51's is the creator of the duplicate article. Ghostrider51 calls this image a self-portrait. If Derwydd23 is, in fact, a secondary account, it would be somewhat certain that he is continuing his self-promotion through the creation of the Andy Hill (film music supervisor). One of the obvious indications that these are the same editors, is this edit where Ghostrider51 changes the signature belonging to Derwydd23, with no clear explanation. Further evidence that the article subjects are the same person:
1) "Andy Hill was born in Chicago", "A.W. Hill ... grew up in the Midwest". Chicago is a major Midwestern US city.
2) While I would never propose LinkedIn as a reliable source for inclusion in an article, I think it's sound for getting our ducks in a row. I found this LinkedIn profile which mentions both his Elmo in Grouchland Grammy, as well as his novel writing as A.W. Hill. (See Publications section) This might just be mirroring Wikipedia content without attribution, so I wouldn't use it as a source, but if it is unique content, it seems to reflect that the guy wears mutiple hats.
3) A.W. Hill's Twitter account says that he's a composer and author.
4) Ghostrider added this author's profile to A.W. Hill in these edits, which states, "A.W. Hill is the author of previous Stephan Raszer novels ... He is a Grammy Award-winning music supervisor for films".
I don't think there's any question it's the same dude, although it would be nice if Ghostrider51 (aka Mr. Hill) would just clarify this already, since it's only causing confusion that is on the cusp of disruptive. We have many subjects that wear different hats. George Carlin is a legendary comedian who also wrote numerous books. We don't have unique articles for George Carlin (comedian) and George Carlin (author) or for Leonardo da Vinci (inventor) and Leonardo da Vinci (painter). Considering Andy Hill is most notable for his Grammy award for music production, I think the main article should be Andy Hill (American music producer) and his literary works should be secondary to that article. It should also be noted that A.W. Hill has recently been edited by Ghostrider51 to include a lot of unsourced fluff, and I think there's a strong conflict of interest situation happening here, which needs monitoring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This complicates matters. File:Andy Hill, Music Supervisor 2014.jpg is A.W.Hill alias Andy Hill. And Ghostrider51 calls it a self-portrait. It was uploaded to Wikipedia at 17:57, 15 January 2014‎ by Ghostrider51. So, one of these may have happened:-
    (1) Andy Hill made a self-portrait (selfie), which Ghostrider51 get hold of somehow and uploaded (with what permission?); where "self" in the image's licence means Andy Hill and not Ghostrider51.
    (2) Andy Hill is Ghostrider51???
Looks like I'm wrong about the self-portrait thing. I've stricken it out. If the user is claiming to be the copyright holder of a selfie, that would suggest one of two most likely things: he is the subject of the photo/article, or the uploader filled out the fields incorrectly while uploading the photo. The latter is likely. It's not the most significant part of my argument, anyway. And we've finally gotten to the bottom of whether or not A.W. Hill and Andy Hill are the same person in the comments below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Articles for Deletion: Andy Hill

Jeez. I suppose I should be flattered by all the attention you're giving this, but where do you find the time? ;D I'm no longer sure of exactly whom I'm communicating with, so I'll just hope that this reaches all concerned with the case. First, with respect to the user ID, I will happily delete the secondary account for Derwydd23 if Wikipedia will cut me a little slack and desist with the ad hominem characterizations and some of the "in-group" value judgement. I can see that this is not going to go away, as you clearly have me in your sights, so let's figure out a way to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. Secondly, reference was made to "fluff" added to the A.W. Hill article, but this material was added expressly in response to your requirement for citations. The Judith Freeman and Ian Rankin quotes are a matter of public record, and both people are the subject of their own Wikipedia articles. Finally, with respect to your characterization of the article as "self-promotion," this is also a value judgement. I can certainly understand that you don't want Wikipedia used as a billboard or advertising platform, but if the professional accomplishments of the subject meet your notability requirements and the article is formatted properly, does it truly matter if a living person gains some "promotional" value from a listing on your site? God knows this is a terrible time to be a writer of new fiction, and the very first thing that editors (which is what I am) and publishers recommend is a Wikipedia listing. So tell me what I need to do to pass muster with all of you. All the best. Ghostrider51 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostrider51 I'm not sure which ad hominem characterizations you are referring to. Toward Andy Hill? Or toward you? I don't think the latter has occurred, unless you are referring to my use of "self-promotion", which at this point seems inaccurate if the correct noun is "promotion". Skipping past that, if you have a conflict of interest, you are highly discouraged from editing this article yourself. As for "in-group value judgement", this is a global encyclopedia run by a community of editors—"in-group value judgement" is going to happen as we evaluate the worth of the content being included. This is another reason why people with a close association to the subject shouldn't edit the subject's article—it can be painful and insulting. They don't mention that in WP:COI, though. So shall we assume that A.W. Hill and Andy Hill are the same person? Do you have any arguments to make for why we would need multiple articles for the same guy? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Deletion Discussion: Andy Hill (Music Supervisor) and A.W. Hill (Author)

Just to clarify the situation (though it seems you have it pretty well sussed out, yes, Andy Hill, the Grammy-winning film music supervisor/producer and music educator, and A.W. Hill, the American novelist, are the same human being. However, they operate in two entirely different cultural and professional spheres, A.W. Hill is a pen name (like Anne Rice's A.N. Roquelaire), and A.W. Hill the author strongly prefers that coverage of his writing endeavors be treated "as if" he were, in fact, a different person. This is certainly not unheard of in the arts world. There are painters who paint under one name and dance under another, and such has been the case going back to the Renaissance. So please let me know if there is a "legitimate" way that the bios can be kept distinct. If not, I will composer a new article about A.W. Hill alone, and we will allow deletion of the Andy Hill article to stand. Thank you. Derwydd23 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. For the record: A. N. Roquelaure is a redirect to Ann Rice, not a unique article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note Derwydd23 is a confirmed sock of Ghostrider51. Mike V • Talk 17:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Sergecross73. My one note is that Andy Hill is a disambiguation page, and there are a few other Andy Hills. Hence my suggestion that we find a way to disambiguate him: Andy Hill (American music producer) or (American composer) or something. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's fine, I agree with that point too. I just meant have it either be based on the music or writer aspect based on which one he was most known for. Something like "American music producer" would be a better, and more commonly phrased, disambiguation. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has a Grammy for music production, which makes him more notable for that than his books. I propose Andy Hill (American music producer) because there is already an article about a British subject, Andy Hill (composer), which could be confusing without national disambiguation being provided along with a disambiguation in notability. Our Andy Hill is also a composer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA1000 06:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RockON.me

RockON.me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG: no significant coverage by reliable independent sources. In fact, no coverage at all. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genie (junyi)

AfDs for this article:
Genie (junyi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unambiguous advertising, clearly written in a non-neutral perspective. Does not follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines and standards Muckysock94 (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Sessions EP (RJ Thompson EP)

Acoustic Sessions EP (RJ Thompson EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable source or notability and possible advert. SmackoVector (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and then redirected to Lovelyz. KTC (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong Yein

Jeong Yein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Jeong Yein has no individual notability outside the girl group she is a member of, and most of the information in this article is copied from Lovelyz. Article was dePRODed by the creator without addressing these issues. Random86 (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jinyu Qin Society

Jinyu Qin Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence of notability Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep: have you even checked it on Google?--淺藍雪❉ 16:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed. 33 hits total including books, but when you take out duplicate hits where the content or website is the same, there are just a few separate and pretty low quality English sources that barely confirm the existence of this group. I don't read Chinese so I can't assess the notability in Chinese. Is there a related Chinese article on Wikipedia? Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I beieve I have already provided the link to chinese article before this nomination--淺藍雪❉ 09:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 09:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just FYI that zh:今虞琴社 was also created by 淺藍雪 above in July 2014, and has just slightly more details over the same content and sources. Still the sources looks promising to an editor uninitiated in traditional Chinese music like myself, with (1) (4) (5) discussing the Society's activity and impact more than mere passing mentions. The Society was also listed multiple times in a Taiwanese chronology of music events [13] and a Chinese music dictionary [14]. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 15:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

On 31 January, User:The Herald, who is not an administrator, closed this discussion as keep. In line with WP:DPR#NAC, which states, inter alia, that "[non-admin d]ecisions are subject to review and may be reopened by an administrator", I, an administrator, have vacated this closure. I've done this because I believe it to be wrong and non-compliant with usual standards. In particular, User:BluntWorthy, and User:94.204.55.125, each of whom have no recent edits outside this topic, have placed two "votes" each, which are liable to be discounted. The preponderant consensus decision is therefore delete. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smokingroove

Smokingroove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been speedy deleted three times, including once by me (Recently). There is no real credible claim to importance (in my mind) outside of maybe being popular on the UAE club scene. The other claim to being extras in the upcoming Star Wars film seems to be sourced to something that is referencing one of the brother's twitter feeds (i.e. like a magazine saying "hey these guys say they are in the new star wars film"), which seems highly unreliable. kelapstick(bainuu) 15:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Smokingroove boys were an integral part of the London radio scene and helped to shape the dance music culture in London through the late 90s. I'm still rewriting the page (forgive my newby-ness) and adding sources. I've been a fan of their music for a while and wanted to contribute and share some of the information i've found. They currently release records that sell in over 35 countries so i think that is indeed worthy of inclusion here on Wiki. Other artists of a similar level are listed here so i think it's only fair that we also feature Smokingroove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluntWorthy (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also see the TMZ links for evidence on their participation in the Star Wars movie. I'm told that due to contractual obligations, they cannot expand upon their roles in the forthcoming movie. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluntWorthy (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also add, they've been verified by both Twitter and Facebook as 'personalities of note' (with the addition of the blue tick) and as we all know, this is an independent verification by them and not something that can be applied for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluntWorthy (talk • contribs) 21:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - it's debatable that they pass WP:MUSICBIO; a lot of the references are either passing mentions, blogs, or interviews. They have not won any significant awards, and I do not believe a Star Wars cameo really counts as "notability." However, the article is still being worked on and could potentially demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The page qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO as they've proved Number 7 "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." with the verified awards without a shadow of a doubt. Their approx 10 years on London's radio scene should also be taken into consideration. BluntWorthy (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where your clearly comes from, Number 7 is almost a non-rule, since it relies on at least one other rule being fulfilled. Additionally, I would argue that the awards are small-time magazine awards that are not sufficiently significant to meet Criteria 8.Primefac (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While i do respect your opinion (and the help you gave towards finding extra resources), i have to add that these are the biggest publishers and magazines for the entire middle East. The awards given are based on votes, media influence and national influence through their years of work to build a scene from nothing. Up until the last decade, the middle east was exactly what you thought it was; basic and nowhere near being on-par with Europe or the states. Now it's a huge scene with hundreds of clubs, bars and hangout spots. The Smokingroove boys have worked to create something special and have top ranking, playing all of the major festivals and clubs. My hats off to them for the endless work they've done to build something special. BluntWorthy (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article still reads as blatant advertising. If my eyes don't deceive me, this looks exactly the same as the version that was deleted weeks ago, so why would this be speedy delete? Not sure how to check the differences, but I'd say either delete it or move it to a draft space so we can get rid of the puffery and exaggerations, and go from there. Sock (tock talk) 03:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With all due respect, i've worked long and hard to make this as factual as possible. I understand they had someone else attempt to write a page for them in the past that came across as blatant advertising. I've researched all of the facts and have come up with a lot more info than some of their peers here on Wiki. My only argument here is the downplaying of the influence they've had on a national level and the years running up to it. Again, there are artists of a similar level Roger Sanchez, Greg Stainer, Dj_Sneak to name a couple who have pages and i have worked to get them also listed here. 94.204.55.125 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They don't meet either the musician-specific guidelines, nor is the general coverage enough to pass GNG. I recommend salting as well. Maybe in six months or so this can be revisited once there's actual significant coverage. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Days Of Confusion

Days Of Confusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Fails WP:BAND. No reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 04:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam (band)

Adam (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not particularly sure how to check this, but others have expressed concern over whether this band meets WP:NBAND. The other claim to notability - their orgasm music video - is no more notable than other small-scale viral videos, most of which have been deleted per WP:NOTNEWS: the coverage is short and confined to the week or two after the video. See [16], [17], and [18], the last of which had much more widespread coverage because of Jameis Winston and is actually still being talked about. Lastly, though not too important, the article was created (perhaps intentionally poorly) to make a WP:POINT; the point was made and rebutted, and it's probably time for this to go. ansh666 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads (Sanjay Shrestha)

Crossroads (Sanjay Shrestha) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, does not show how it passes GNG for bands or artists Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 20:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Sanjay Shrestha. I think the references in the article alone are enough for notability. One of the most popular pop artists in Nepal in the 1990s. Two books and a web profile in English should be enough. According to this he still releases albums under the Crossroads name, although the band disbanded a decade ago. Hence redirect. Merge the band member names and references. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheenam Katholic

Sheenam Katholic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significance. The speedy deletion tag was removed twice by the two different ips possibly of the same user Aryan kumar sangwan without any explaination. Mr RD 14:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA1000 17:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanic

Vanic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is he notable enough? No sources Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanic is a renowned disc jockey from Canada and has over millions of hits, per video. He is arguably one of the most popular, if not the most popular DJ to have emerged via SoundCloud and YouTube. To delete this page would be like deleting Obama's page... if he was a disc jockey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiffmeister420 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC) — Yiffmeister420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


I'd argue that Vanic is notable enough. I'm not sure exactly what sources you need to verify that, but his SoundCloud, Facebook and Twitter should be References if they aren't already. They amass over 100,000 individual likes and his SoundCloud and YouTube videos amass over 5 million views. In addition, he has already started playing in some of Canada's headlining festivals and electronic music venues and events. The references can be added to verify this, and I believe (and I may be wrong) but they were in a previous version of the wiki post. —  NoahWeidner (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC) — Noahweidner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article says he only became "prominent" last year, and that's probably why he does not meet the notability criteria at this time. The article contains no Reliable Sources. In a search, the closest thing I found to a Reliable Source was a passing mention at TechCrunch[19]. Maybe in a year or two he will have gained the notability we need, but for now, no. --MelanieN (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A lack of adequate participation prevents this from being closed with a keep result. The discussion is leaning keep, though. NORTH AMERICA1000 11:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual band

Virtual band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an interesting piece but I am not seeing enough sources to make it suitable. The article is all but unsourced and the Internet isn't helping. Cptnono (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively "animated musical groups" with some sources could work?Cptnono (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are a couple sources in the article, and the fact that Guinness has a category for it shows that it's at least a thing. It's a hard term to Google though. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll admit that it's difficult to find articles that discuss the topic without going in-depth into the history of Gorillaz. However, I did find a few sources that satisfied me: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. This phrase does seem very heavily associated with Gorillaz, as expected, but it does get used to describe other bands. There's a little bit of discussion about the topic itself in those links, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE all five nominated articles. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artefact (band)

AfDs for this article:
Artefact (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any information about this band, and all the links in the article are dead. Laurent (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating their four albums:

They've all been created by the same two users, and are all based on primary sources only. None of it appears to be notable enough for inclusion. Laurent (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I hate deleting band pages since I feel they usually don't warrant it, but my google fu failed me on this one. Wish I spoke French, and could maybe look for better reviews that way. (hint anyone?) Earflaps (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I googled it in French language but didn't find anything about it either. The French Wikipedia article has the same problems with poor sources or dead links (I guess the English version is a translation of the French one). Laurent (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd close this as delete but taking care of the paperwork is too complicated when mobile, so I'll leave it for the next schmuck admin: delete. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Marc Rousseau

AfDs for this article:
Paul Marc Rousseau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting for further discussion because my first nomination failed to garner any participation at all after two relists — and an editor has continually reverted any attempt on my part to just go ahead with the redirect anyway, even though AFD consensus is not required for a redirect. The problem here remains that WP:NMUSIC does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to a musician whose notability is within the context of a band rather than as an independent topic — the only reference in this entire article in which Rousseau is the main subject, rather than being namechecked in coverage of the band as a whole, is covering him in the context of having had to take a couple of weeks off from the band for emergency abdominal surgery. And most of the sources are primary or unreliable ones like Tumblr and Blogspot blogs and a Reddit thread. So nothing here demonstrates that he has the independent notability necessary to stand alone as a separate article — if a musician's only substantive claim of notability is "member of a notable band", and he cannot claim independent notability for anything else besides that, then as per WP:NMUSIC he gets to be a redirect to the band and not a poorly sourced standalone BLP. Redirect to Silverstein (band). (Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Told, which did generate participation and was closed as a redirect for the same reasons that are applicable here.) Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep greater notability outside the band than was true for Told, who has been with the band since the start. There are sufficient reliable sources, including primary sources such as blogs used with caution (which is permitted) to establish notability.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage of him is all within the context of the band, and consists of being namechecked within articles whose primary subject is the band. And primary sources are permitted for additional verification of facts after enough reliable sources have been added to cover off the basic notability issue, but never under any circumstances count for anything toward the establishment of the topic's notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting. I've been on Wikipedia almost a decade and the number of times I've seen "never under any circumstances" is minimal. You dismiss the sources you don't like, deem guidelines rigid rules, and give every break against the article. Primary sources are RS, they just need to be used with care. There are ample sources establishing notability. The content is usable and sourced, and it is difficult to see why the reader should be denied it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If primary sources could demonstrate or confer notability in and of themselves, then every single person who has a web page or a Tumblr blog would have to be given a Wikipedia article as well. But that's not how we do things on here — it's reliable source coverage that determines whether a person gets in here or not, and the reliable source coverage in this case is lacking. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So now it has been listed five times in less than two months. Is this like a European referendum, it goes on until the "proper" answer is given, and then stops? Or is it best two out of three?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An article can be relisted as many times as it takes to generate sufficient discussion to establish an actual consensus one way or the other. It's not a question of "the correct answer" — if there were a "keep" consensus, then the article would have to be kept even if I still disagreed with that — but there has to be a consensus one way or the other. A "no-consensus" close, which is where the first one landed, resolves nothing — especially when it was "no consensus because nobody participated". Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Silverstein (band). A standalone article only makes sense if the subject has notability outside of the band (in this case). I don't see how anything else he has done confers standalone notability. The vast majority of the article deals with his personal life and the tenure with Silverstein, and the "Other activities" section is basically bereft of anything notable. I agree he fails WP:MUSICBIO individually and a redirect is appropriate, with no prejudice to going back to an article once he actually does something noteworthy. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that this individual does not meet the criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone article, with most of the sourcing being about his work in the band rather than him as an individual. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Koehler

AfDs for this article:
Paul Koehler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting for further consideration because my first nomination failed to generate any participation at all after two relists, and an editor is resisting any attempt on my part to just go ahead with the redirect even though AFD consensus is not required for a redirect. The problem here remains that WP:NMUSIC does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to a musician whose notability is within the context of a band rather than as an independent topic — this article is relying mainly on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and the few appropriately reliable sources are not about Koehler per se, but merely namecheck him within the context of the band. So nothing here demonstrates that he has the independent notability necessary to stand alone as a separate article — if a musician's only substantive claim of notability is "member of a notable band", and he cannot claim independent notability for anything else besides that, then as per WP:NMUSIC he gets to be a redirect to the band and not a poorly sourced standalone BLP. Redirect to Silverstein (band). (Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Told, which did generate participation and was closed as a redirect for the same reasons that are applicable here.) Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a fifth listing in less than two months.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An article can be relisted as many times as it takes to generate sufficient discussion to establish any actual consensus one way or the other. It's not a question of "the correct answer" — if there were a "keep" consensus, then the article would have to be kept even if I still disagreed with that — but there has to be a consensus one way or the other. A "no-consensus" close, which is where the first one landed, resolves nothing — especially when it was "no consensus because nobody participated". Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - Only one of the listed independent sources is actually about the person (a very short interview). The others are either self-published, blogs/forums, or about the band silverstein. @Wehwalt: "Content not available elsewhere" should not be in Wikipedia in the first place, as per WP:OR. --Latebird (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of in-depth coverage of Koehler, independent of the band. Merge anything useful to Silverstein, but there's not enough otherwise to meet WP:NMUSIC or CREATIVE. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi McGarity

Kristi McGarity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN composer - fails WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSIC and WP:PROF. The mention in the Hinkle-Turner book is literally 2 lines saying she won an undergraduate award and is pursuing her doctorate (see talk page) - no where near the in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG The Dissident Aggressor 01:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Aryan

Raj Aryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. In the references given, one is broken and the other makes no mention of the subject. The remaining one has only a passing mention. Article creator appears to be the subject as well - WP:AUTOBIO. Drm310 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tamil: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Raj Aryan Raj Kumar
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as created by an SPA simply to promote himself, Had this been a newbie I would've happily let it slide but it's obvious this bloke's here for one reason and It's not to improve the 'pedia unfortunately, –Davey2010Talk 04:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't understand. If MichaelQ found good sources, why didn't they go into the article, and why would he say that the subject "may" meet the GNG? Look, either the sources are proven to be there, and the subject meets the GNG, or they're not, and he doesn't. I'm not finding any. Someone comes up with some and puts them in the article, I'll change my vote. Nha Trang Allons! 14:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt, courtesy ping czar ⨹ 22:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer 67

Hammer 67 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not very knowledgeable about music but this article seems to fail WP:NMUSIC and, even if kept, needs a fundamental rewrite. Sitush (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Couldn't find anything useful other than collaborative websites, blogs and mere mentions. I got a couple of minor sources, so minor that I'd say the band would hardly pass WP:NBAND. At best it could be redirected to Paulo Schroeber, though it does not appear to be the case since he is apparently not the leader. Victão Lopes Fala! 12:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To The Wind

To The Wind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable band. I've turned down a CSD because I can find the band namechecked in two reasonable sources here and here, and Tokyogirl79 has attempted to engage the article's creator. I don't think it will harm things to do it "by the book". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Closing as no consensus after over 1 month of discussion and minimal participation. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor Xhemali

Mentor Xhemali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient assertion of notability in the article. I did a Google search, but didn't pop up any usable material. However, I'm very willing to consider this might be a case of all-references-are-offline, given his nationality and death date. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does not say much, but what it says is true. There are less known Albanian people who have wiki articles. I don't see any reason to delete it. The article needs a lot of improvement though[1][2][3][4] Mondiad (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mentor Xhemali: (monografi) ; nje ze dhe nje zemer bubullime
  2. ^ Albania, a patrimony of European values: a short encyclopedia of Albanian history and cultural heritage
  3. ^ Selected Writings of the Great Marxist-Leninist, Enver Hoxha, on the Life and Work of the Party: The State and the People of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, 1971-1977
  4. ^ Filmi artistik shqiptar, 1957-1984: filmografi, Volume 2
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 07:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the sources noted above. Some sources appear to exist (through snippets) in a GBooks search. The article about him in Albanian Wikipedia (which I read via Google Translate) makes energetic, albeit unsourced, assertions of his significance. With due concern for avoiding systemic geographical bias, I lean toward keeping this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, no pejudice against recreation if better sources have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CHI-CHI

CHI-CHI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable group that has only released a handful of singles and have since disbanded. Sources are disputed and many rely on Social Media or WP:PRIMARY. Karst (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 00:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie Raia

AfDs for this article:
Moxie Raia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Line Magazine is her talking abbout herself. The Hype Magazine and Examiner are not reliable sources. The Brain Music is not independent. The others are just postings of her video or remixes. Link from DRV does not provide any depth of coverage about her. Nothing significant. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • She has released zero albums so no pass on 5. Not her song so no pass on 10 (wouldn't pass even if it was). Hilton is not a reliable source so no pass on 7 ( and having a distinct style by itself does not pass either). You claim a pass on 1 but don't provide any depth of coverage from reliable sources. What sources do you think gets the pass? 01:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment duffbeerformeThere are literally tons of mainstream sources covering her. [27], [28], [29], [30] also the source with tmz references her music as mix between "Miley Cyrus meets Lana Del Rey". So yes styles are mentioned there. Please refrain from blatantly false accusations of being disingenuous as such personal attacks are uncalled for. I highly recommend you read my rational and review wp:band. Valoem talk contrib 03:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions and non reliable sources.
He never said it was a distinct style. Him calling it a mix between "Miley Cyrus meets Lana Del Rey" does not make it a distinct style. A distinct style is not enough for WP:MUSIC.
I highly recommend you read your rational and review wp:band. Start with 5. "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Then count how many albums Raia has released. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can see those are not passing mentions especially the directlyrics source and Wp:band saying the following "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" she meets well over one. Valoem talk contrib 08:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can see that directlyrics is not a reliable source. The others? Wetpaint is a "Social Publishing Platform", not a reliable source. Idolator, short lightweight blog post, hey check out this song, trivial coverage of Raia. LA Daily News "But to warm up the stage, pop singer Moxie Raia is also slated to perform on the 5 Towers stage at Universal City Walk starting at 7 p.m. The East Coast native is expected to perform her single “Buffalo Bill,” which has been remixed by legendary DJ Tiesto. Raia plans to release her debut album later this year". No depth of coverage. You say she meets well over one. Which ones? Have you counted the number of albums she has released yet? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note She doesn't have to meet WP:MUSIC. It lists alternative guidelines for notability that are available to musical people in addition to the guidelines that are available to them under WP:GNG and WP:PERSON, not instead of them. By the way, I think the first reference is valid, the one with the Top 10 list, because it presupposes that she's a person who would be of interest to readers, i.e., it presupposes some degree of note. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Notability so far consists of one song on a soundtrack, not even an album yet. Might have an article someday, but I don't think we're quite there yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak dDelete Of Valoem's set of four links above, the first two give only passing mentions in articles about Steve Aoki, and the fourth is a passing mention in a WP:ROUTINE local event listing. This is the case with most of the references in the article. Where I hesitate is over the way the a couple of the articles that have any focus on her (such as Valoem's third reference) comment on how "she is about to become the 'next big thing' in music". Can we say someone is notable for being "about to be notable"? I thought this reference from the article was useful, insofar as it presupposes that the websites readers know who she is and would be interested in knowing what she tells us about herself. And then there's this full-on interview. In total, I've seen three or four sources that I feel qualify, but is that enough? So let's say this article wasn't posted until five years from now, and nothing more had been published about her in the interim. From that perspective I wouldn't feel that she hadn't attain notability, not just because her coverage was brief but because it was shallow, unlike the coverage of, say, flash-in-the-pan William Hung. So I'm leaning toward WP:TOOSOON, even while feeling it might not take much to tip her over to the other side. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC) I'm strengthening my vote to a full Delete for two reasons. (1) It just sank in that WP:MUSIC is explicit about something I had a concern about: whether an interview can be used to support notability. An interview isn't independently giving us any information about its subject, it's all from the subject herself. I was also wondering whether the inclusion of these interviews really reflect interest on the part of the publications in the subject, or whether they're a matter of a person whom the sources have never even heard of before approaching them and asking "Will you please do an interview of me?" Regardless of the answers to my questions, WP:MUSIC openly excludes these interviews from consideration. (2) Unfortunately, Valoem's attempts to bring sources to our attention has backfired in my view. The conclusion I come to from the materials he's presented is that even a person who is actively trying to bring us appropriate sources can find only trivial mentions and interviews. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo:; I've found a few more citations which use push her over the edge, [31], Rolling Stones, and [32] (questionable source), She does in fact pass 1, 6, and 10 putting her well over WP:N. I hope this can change your opinion to Weak Keep. Valoem talk contrib 18:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Valoem. These are all passing mentions in content that's about other things. What the words "featuring a commanding hook by Los Angeles singer-songwriter Moxie Raia", for example, are about is the track "Shell Shocked". They aren't "significant coverage" of Moxie Raia that "addresses [her] directly and in detail". —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo:; These three sources here [33] [34], [35] should be enough to push it over the guideline, specifically the first source, should it not? Plus if we included WP:BAND it does appear she passes. Valoem talk contrib 20:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already discounted all the mentions in articles about Steve Aoki. "Aoki teamed up with rising pop star Moxie Raia ..." isn't significant coverage of Moxie Raia. The Perez Hilton blurb is about her, but it says almost nothing about her, being really about the song. Still, it is evidence of being noticed. But it isn't new in this discussion: you mentioned it earlier. As for the Anthem interview, that's a good one—but it isn't new. It's one of the ones I already listed above. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: If you asking for a few more sources which have significant coverage to push her over the edge these should do, [36], [37], [38]. Let me know what you think. Valoem talk contrib 05:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at your "new" sources. 1. Direct Lyrics. again. Nothing new there and it's still not a reliable source. It's a lyrics database. And it's just another publication "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" (see WP:MUSIC#1). 2,3 More of Moxie talking about herself. Nothing independent here. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming she now passes number 6 hey? Let's look at that one. First part "Is an ensemble" ... She's not an ensemble so let's skip that bit. Next bit "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Which ensembles has she been a member of? None. No pass there. Another dodgy claim? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a reason for this page to be deleted. A lot of singers have wiki pages lack information, go out and find better sources and information instead of deleting it. Dman41689 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for notes on the pitfalls of making comparisons to other pages. The point here is that we can't find sources adequate to establish notability, as is required for subjects of Wikipedia articles. It isn't just a matter of whether the article has the information, it's a matter of whether it exists. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coasts (band)

Coasts (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced non notable band. Does not meet CSD:A7, as they assert notability, but "signing" does not meet WP:BAND Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets all 3 of the below WP:BAND requirements & has sources to back up all claims in the references section...

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)

Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhinodigital (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

The BBC link has no content in it "This episode is not available". So cannot WP:Verify anything. If it were available it might help satisfy #12, but a single story generally does not grant notability. The daystune link is not usable for the purposes of WP:BAND #1 "This criterion includes published works in all forms except publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" The other two links do not contain any information whatsoever. I do not see any place where we can verify they have been placed into rotation by a major network or performed a notable song (by our criteria). Being popular on soundcloud doesn't really mean much to us currently (and isn't sourced in any case). Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have swapped ref. 2 with a new source from Clash Magazine. A well known music journal.

I have now swapped reference 3 to include an iTunes link for the Made In Chelsea soundtrack. Proving that the band featured on the British television program of the same name, which is notable. Additionally, this fulfills criteria as a notable compilation album. Link available here: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/made-in-chelsea-soundtrack/id765759007

Although the playback link is now expired on the BBC website, it very clearly states within the article Jessie Ware Session + Coasts, Zane Lowe - describing the content within the radio show. Further more, the article specifically mentions that Coasts feature as one of Zane Lowe's 'Hottest Records' : Jessie Ware is in session for Zane, plus a Hottest Record from Coasts.. Please take a second look. I have provided a supporting reference (ref. 5), which is a tweet from Zane discussing his selection of the band as 'next hype'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhinodigital (talk • contribs) 10:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- The band 'Coasts' are definitely notable, and worthy of this article (talk). I have reviewed the page and it looks fine, not sure why it is up for deletion at all... Whether or not the article has been referenced appropriately is another thing, but I think it has. IPlease review. musiclab (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Jarosz

Mike Jarosz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entire article appears is WP:OR based off of youtube videos and fansites. WP:BEFORE search finds no significant coverage. Seems to be a relatively successful local musician, but is not getting coverage that pushes us past WP:GNG or WP:BAND

Best I can find is

  • Passing mention in a concert announcement [39]
  • Passing mention at announcement for same concert [40]
  • Self published bio at the "book a band" site [41]

Article creator may be WP:COI (manager/promoter?). Is an WP:SPA with all edits dealing with Jarosz or related items

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 07:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dannic

Dannic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails GNG - the 30th most popular DJ in the Netherlands DOCUMENT★ERROR 12:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 07:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. The consensus is that the article has been sufficiently improved since nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flula Borg

AfDs for this article:
Flula Borg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Queried speedy delete :: claim that he is more significant than he was before. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - article is sourced to YouTube and non-RS sources such as NewMediaRockstars.com, Tubefilter.com, etc. Given the persistence with which this article is recreated, it should probably be WP:SALTed. DOCUMENT★ERROR 09:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize if I'm not commenting properly for this space, but I need more information. (1) What does "non-RS sources" mean? I sincerely thought they were good sources but I can change them now that I know they're not. (2) How is recreating it just one time after (a) a full year of work and (b) seeking and receiving the approval of the deleting admin inappropriately persistent? What more should I have done to proceed appropriately? (These are sincere questions, not challenges or arguments!) I've requested help with the article many times in various places (I can show you if needed) but it just keeps being deleted with minimal explanation as to what exactly is wrong. I'm confident it can be an acceptable article if I can just figure out why it's not right. I'm really trying to do the right thing here, and I'd appreciate any information anyone can provide. Thank you. -- edi(talk) 14:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I've attempted to improve the sourcing of the article based on the information I've acquired. I've removed all New Media Rockstars, Tubefilter, and YouTube references (except for the "About" page, which only serves to verify statistics and is automatically generated by YouTube, not posted by any individual). I've also removed all IMDb references after being informed elsewhere that it's generally not appropriate here. If there are other objectionable sources listed, let me know and I'll remove them as well.
Also, I'm unsure whether the nominating admin's mention of a "claim that he is more significant than he was before" refers to me, but I'd like to clarify that I never intended to make that argument. My only request was that the article not be speedily deleted so that I'd have the opportunity to discuss it and (hopefully) make improvements that would cause it to be acceptable. I'm not sure whether there's a question of notability, but if there is, I'd submit that I believe Mr. Borg meets WP:MUSBIO #1, 10, and 12 as well as WP:ENT #2. It's possible that I'm wrong, of course. I'm only explaining my reasoning for writing the article. Thanks for your patience as I learn. -- edi(talk) 08:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 01:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thorstein Aaby

Thorstein Aaby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Played in a notable band, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Geschichte (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drawl) @ 22:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (message) @ 22:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 20:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sources not found Shii (tock) 06:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen and the Plastic Spoons

Kitchen and the Plastic Spoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see them meeting any criteria of WP:BAND LibStar (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chinwag) @ 21:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jive) @ 21:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (tell) @ 14:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (chew) @ 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what criteria of WP:BAND do they meet? LibStar (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Generation Tour

The Greatest Generation Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NTOUR Wizardman 04:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (spout) @ 20:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Comment The problem with this article is that there are several citations announcing an upcoming tour and none that review or discuss the tour. At the moment this article makes it impossible to verify whether or not the tour was cancelled, so there's no way for it to be notable. Add two non-trivial sources that specifically discuss the tour in the past tense and I'd happily change to a keep. -Markeer 03:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. KTC (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhikhari Thakur

Bhikhari Thakur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. No independent sources cited. Puffery and promotional language. Lots of original research. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 06:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on what you base your assertion that Thakur is non-notable when he is covered in multiple independent reliable sources.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So put them in! (Even with refs I'd have a hard time liking the article in its present form. What a mess.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This does not bar anyone from redirecting the page. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jungah

Kim Jungah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to have individual notability per WP:MUS or WP:ENT. Should be redirected to After School (band). Random86 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This artist has been in two other bands and on a television show. She is also the stated "leader" of the band "After school." As separate items the make her notable, together, they clearly make her notable. This individual page should remain. Additionally, "After School" is a non-nuclear group in that all of the members "graduate" from the band and are replaced by new members. As such, the "band" isn't technically a band at all, but an amalgam of incoming and outgoing contributors. Excluding individual pages effectively wipes out any history of the band, because the band is not a band in the technical sense at all. WIthout background on the individuals that band is just a creation of Pledis Entertainment. Of the requests for deletion for individual pages assigned to members of After School, this one, in particular, is rather curious as notability is quite clear already.Dockane (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment All that band history can go on the band's article. I don't see where anything you've said relates to notability by Wikipedia standards: significant coverage about the individual in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the artist. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to After School (band). The one delete !vote asserts "per nom" of which the nom requested redirection to After School (band). That, combined with the rest, leads this to a redirection. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Kim

Rebekah Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to have individual notability per WP:MUS. Should be redirected to After School (band). Random86 (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to delete this artist's individual page. She is a legacy member of a notable band where individual members are purposely rotated out of the band as "graduating" members. No member is retained in the band indefinitely -- the band is a non-nuclear unit with "outside" contributors. All, members are, in essence, "contributors" to a band designed by Pledis Entertainment. As such all members, including Rebekah Kim contribute to the brand, the dance, and often the songwriting of "the band." Additionally, each current and member and past member have their own pages regardless of individual successes outside the group. We are not weighing noteworthy-ness based on the number of successful singles when it comes to citing contribution, or many band members would never be cited outside of the band page. More importantly, fan appreciation of such works does not factor into notability either. Outside of the band, this artist has also started her own jewelry company and appeared in a variety of media, including this September 2013 article in Billboard magazine [42] which talks, in part about a future return to music. She has also been interviewed on camera at KCON2013 [43] referring to her recent in-studio work. She hardly lacks notability, nor has she been unproductive since her departure from After School, and this individual page should remain in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dockane (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – per nom. She appears to be utterly non-notable outside the group. The Billboard article was interesting, but it was about her experiences in the group. If former members have notable careers in acting etc. after "graduating", OK they can have their own articles. But they have to be notable on their own. Having a section for former members in the group article seems like the most natural way to handle it. The Billboard interview could go there. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to After School (band). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kaeun

Lee Kaeun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to have individual notability per WP:MUS, and should be redirected to After School (band). Random86 (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per nom. There is no evidence of individual notability. The lead claims she's an actress but not a single acting credit is listed, only variety show appearances with other members of her group. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to After School (band). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E-Young

E-Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to have individual notability per WP:MUS. Should be redirected to After School (band). Random86 (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unfortunately we need proof of notability, more than the suggestion of possible notability. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Tripon

Maria Tripon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any particular indication this individual might meet WP:BAND points 2-12. As for point 1, let's work our way through the sources presented.

  • Announcements (1, 2, 3, 4) that a film which includes the subject in the cast is going to play in a provincial town. Again, a bit of a reach.
  • We also have a link to a book about the subject. While that sounds impressive at first, the fact is that the press which put it out is a self-publishing outfit: "Have a manuscript? We'll take care of the editing, and figure out a price together."
  • Finally, there are some newspaper articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The problem with these is twofold: one, they're puff pieces with little pretense of objectivity. Two, the papers are very small and local in nature. One of them, Informația Zilei, sells 6,000 copies a day. The other two are not even listed in the circulation figures. A notable Romanian singer will generally feature in the national, Bucharest-based press, or at the very least, in the press from Cluj-Napoca, the nearest metropolis to Tripon. That is simply not the case here, which is telling.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (intone) @ 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Biruitorul, it would have been courteous if you had notified the creator (and main contributor) of this article, Taraoasuluiro. While editor Paul A notified Taraoasuluiro of your speedy deletion nomination, the current AfD nomination has not yet been mentioned to Taraoasuluiro, and it's likely that Taraoasuluiro is unaware of the discussion on this page. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I have no strong opposition to deleting the article and I noticed that editor Andrei Stroe tagged the Romanian article about the subject with (the Romanian version of) {{Notability}} on January 6th. However, after some searching I have the impression that Maria Tripon is just notable enough for inclusion. Nominator Biruitorul looked at the references that were added by the creator and main author of the article. This is good, but we need to look beyond those. The references currently in the article are primarily local newspapers and pages that mention the subject in passing. The video clip shows her performance during Pro TV's "La Maruta" program. The "Trupa de Show" film was a musical comedy for children. The film and her honorary citizenship do not make her notable. Google News gave me various hits about the subject for the second half of last year, so I decided to use Google to search through some leading national newspapers of Romania. Adevărul has various articles that mention the subject. So do other national newspapers of Romania: Krónika[44] România Liberă[45] Libertatea[46][47] Jurnalul Național[48][49][50][51] Evenimentul Zilei[52] Some of those pages include a photo of her. While she's mostly mentioned in passing, the pages give me the impression that she is fairly well-known in Romania. She has been on TV stations other than Pro TV, such as Etno TV[53] and Look TV.[54] (Search "Maria Tripon" on YouTube and browse through the resulting pages to find more stations. You can tell them apart by on-screen text and logos.) She's not just a local singer. She' just notable enough for inclusion. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NMUSIC is clear about what constitutes a notable singer: one who "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". Passing mentions don't count towards notability. I'm not saying the subject is unknown outside the Oaș Country, but that's not the standard by which we judge notability, either. The standard is set forth above, and the lack of independent coverage points to non-notability.
    • Note that said criterion applies to "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries". However, it does not include video clips of singers, so mere television appearances during live entertainment performances are also not evidence of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 19:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To (re)summarize the gist of my scribblings above: I believe that she is fairly well-known in Romania and is just notable enough for inclusion. WP:NMUSIC is a guideline, not a policy. (WP:IAR is. ) While it would be ideal if we could point to third-party articles in major publications where she's discussed in detail - because that would be airtight 'proof' that fits nicely with the notability guideline - the things I've found give me the impression she's notable enough. I see enough coverage, specially when reviewed in context (Romania, 0.28% of the world population). What I found was from a quick Google search, it's very likely there's more coverage of her. We could ask WikiProject Romania for input. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luhan (singer)

Luhan (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite Asdklf's best intentions (and I appreciate their efforts) I do not see the notability for this person outside of his band--I had redirected it earlier, to List_of_Exo_members#Luhan, and Asdklf and I have been butting heads ever since. Anyway, I think their claim is that this guy is notable because of his following, for instance--but such a claim is hardly verified by anything other than how many fans read his Weibo posts, and some award handed out by Baidu about internet popularity. Now, he also has a role in a movie that's coming out next year, but that's one role, whose importance cannot be determined without proper sourcing--he might as well be an extra, I can't tell. So, I think the redirect should be restored. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He has won two awards, one for general popularity within idols and one based on a systematic look of his online influence. He has similarly set a world record for the number of comments on a single Weibo post, which while taken alone is just a cool fact, in conjunction with those awards I think indicates a large fan base, per WP:ENT #2. No he hasn't had much of a solo career, but he is already a notable figure in two separate entertainment industries, yes stemming from his Exo exposure and the lawsuit, but it has grown beyond that, evidenced by his strength as a solo artist only months after filing the lawsuit. That role in Back to 20 is a lead role, as stated in the article. I don't know how else to say it: he has a cult following. Edit: also his OST contribution to that movie ranked on Baidu Weekly Charts as high as number one. Edit 2: He has also led the Gaon Weibo Chart, a chart that ranks the most popular K-pop artists in China on several occasions 12 3Asdklf; (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that ChannelNewsAsia article spends three sentences on him and I don't see that it has him in a "lead role"--maybe a sub-lead role. I also put very little stock in weekly online popularity contests, but YMMV of course--it seems to me that this is just another part of a publicity machine that measures everything. And mind you, most of the article, after your reinstatement of previous content, pertains to EXO (including refs 2 through 12), leaving precious little about him. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Because Kris also has the same amount of notability outside of EXO (acting and awards) as Luhan does. Just keep Luhan for a while. If Luhan doesn't establish any further notability in the future, then I'll reconsider AfD'ing. Tibbydibby (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (natter) @ 20:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - this is one of the top stars in China right now, whose fame has outgrown the band EXO. China National Radio named him the sixth biggest star of China in 2014 [55], and not the band. Besides, he has filed a lawsuit to leave the band. He is also starring in the high-profile new movie Miss Granny, which, incidentally, was released today. -Zanhe (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 15:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep With the incredible exposure Luhan has generated in the last few months after leaving EXO, he has far exceeded the notability needed for a Wikipedia article. His Weibo tag has over 22 billion views, he has a Guinness World Record and has won numerous awards for his influence and popularity in Chinese entertainment. [56] In addition, Luhan is now the first and only male star from mainland China to be featured on the cover of ELLE magazine and is now the first spokesperson for Baidu in the company's history. [57] "Back to 20" has grossed 326 million RMB in China so far and Luhan plays a lead role in the movie. [58] Emostrich (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duo kie

Duo kie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this article does not meet wikipedia notability guidelines .

if you take a good look to this article on the page and read carefully , you will understand that the article says that the music band presently present the TV show MTV Tunning España. ... this was an article page that was edited since 2012, without any relieble sources for verification .... SORRY now the article has been nominated for deletions , HERE COMES an article news updated publish 6 days ago [1]Samat lib (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOW i have just translated the article source, and this is the words in english ....[2] The Headline page ... MTV programming for tomorrow Wednesday (Replaces earlier) ....... and the story about the music band ...... MTV Tuning Spain. The tuning car reaches another dimension MTV Tuning. Now comes the Spanish version where rappers Duo Kie be our hosts. .......

My point of view i still strongly believed that this band Has never present the TV show MTV Tunning España, and there maybe also possible a conflict of interest on the newspaper article source , and there is no information about the newspaper Editor who wrote this very article Samat lib (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC) -- Completing an AfD nomination on behalf of Samat lib -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://eldia.es/agencias/7877261-Programacion-MTV-manana-miercoles-Sustituye-anterior
  2. ^ http://eldia.es/agencias/7877261-Programacion-MTV-manana-miercoles-Sustituye-anterior
  • (Just a quick note regarding above - It's all a bit confusing but I originally deleted the above as A) It was below, and B) Had headers (So I assumed without properly reading it was a random editor unhappy with it being kept)- So I've readded it back as part of the noms rationale, Cheers, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Looking at the article itself; I'm tempted to agree it doesn't seem notable. The article was created in 2012 and has changed very little since that time. It is poorly written and referenced and the references aren't in English. However, since it's a Spanish band, I checked out the article in the Spanish Wikipedia. They have 2 articles on this band, a regular article and a discography.
The regular article over there has some clean up templates, but as I don't know Spanish I don't know what they mean. Looking at that, I'm tempted to say the band is notable, but this article needs work by someone who is bi-lingual. I went ahead and added the picture of the band to the article. Keep and tag for clean-up. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (prattle) @ 20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (comment) @ 20:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Catala wiki also has an article, which looks to be the best of the three (though again, I can't read the language so I'm just going on what it looks like. But it has the most references and no clean up tags). See here. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please can someone take a closer look to this very news article, [1] please you can also translate and read it on Google, This very article was publish in 2011. According to the Editor who wrote this very news article wish says that this very band will soon host the MTV Tuning Spain,.. My point of view there is no news article that says and prove it clear that the Music band as already host the MTV Tuning Spain. there is no news article Editor that talks about how the band host the Show and there Significant in the MTV SHOWS, and what was the Audience reaction .Samat lib (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOW you all can agree with me , 

when you read carefully about the Band news article publish again in January 2015 [2]  wish says /  Now comes the Spanish version where rappers Duo Kie be our hosts.   ....... THERE is no news Editor that talks about how the band host the MTV Tuning Spain and there Significant on the MTV tuning Show. if really the band are notable ,   but Sorry all i read here is Band will host   Samat lib (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this Music Band dont seems Notable from my point of view. 

been an Host of MTV tuning Spain  - - -

does that make him a Notable artist . i really do not know if the Spanish MTV tuning is also Notable according to Wikipedia rules Dos hermana (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://sevilla.abc.es/20110520/tv-realities/sevi-tunning-201105201131.html
  2. ^ http://eldia.es/agencias/7877261-Programacion-MTV-manana-miercoles-Sustituye-anterior
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 20:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Graham

Johanna Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. As an aside, it was created by an WP:SPA and the tome seems promotional. Possibly worth a redirect to 33 Jazz, the label she is with, but does not seem to be notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are the awards that she has won notable awards? (I suspect they're not, but not enough to go with a delete.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Раціональне анархіст, This is Cornwall and South West Music Awards are not notable awards. The amount of jazz in SW England is minimal, so to be voted best in jazz for that area says nothing at all, and to get any award at that award ceremony would be non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forced Entry (band)

Forced Entry (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct non-notable band that "never achieved mainstream success". Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. User:Thrashaholic88 is the creator of Forced Entry (band)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chew) @ 20:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are presently only four references. The first [60] is from a questionable source with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The second [61] is from an unreliable source that is not independent of the subject. The last two [62] [63] are primary sources, that simply list the name of the band.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the interview cited in the article [64] there are album reviews at AllMusic [65] and Blabbermouth [66], and a biography at Encyclopaedia Metallum [67]. The band is included as an important 'also ran' at Gibson [68] and in print [69] [70] [71]. Not enough perhaps to independently establish WP:N per element 1 of WP:BAND, but enough to persuade me that Thrashaholic88 was right about the band's importance.
Proposer should have offered some editorial assistance here instead of trying to kill the article within 10 minutes of its creation [72]. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: preceding editor has added external links to track listings.
A misstatement of fact, Becky; none of the seven links are track listings [73]. Album reviews (2), biographies (2), Gibson Guitar's estimation of the band's importance, band's publication history at Discogs, and the band's Myspace page. Please sign your comments when you editorialize. Unsigned small text can be mistaken for an unbiased administrative caution. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BAND#5 requires "two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labelsn (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)". There is no reliable source indicating the band was signed by Combat records. See WP:BURDEN. Combat records is not a major record label. Combat is not one of the more important indie labels. Its article says it was taken over and dissolved by Sony, and none of the bands attributed to it are referenced. Reading this guideline broadly enough to include Combat leads to an argument for double INHERITED Notability, from the notable other bands up to the record label and back down to the one being discussed. Even assuming a pass on WP:BAND, the guideline only indicates that it "may be notable". It still needs to pass WP:GNG. As discussed above, all of the references (including external links recently added) are either trivial mentions [74] [75] [76], track listings, primary sources, or from sources with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy [77] [78] [79](allows user submitted content) [80](allows user submitted content)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(tl;dr? (1) WP:N per WP:BAND, elements 5 and 6; (2) sufficient sources exist for the topic; (3) it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.)
There are two considerations here. First, the subject of the article must be worthy of the editorial resources needed to improve it. That's WP:N in a nutshell. A successful label is presumed able to identify worthy artists. It doesn't idly prognosticate but backs its opinion with its money and reputation, so an artist with continued backing (per the "two's a trend" metric) is presumed worthy of editorial attention. That's WP:BAND#5 in a nutshell. There's no weird transitive property of notability at work here, as you seem to believe.
This band is in fact notable per WP:BAND#5. Combat operated independently from 1983 until 1991 when it was folded back into parent Relativity. That's nine years, ten before the "Combat/Relativity" imprint was finally dropped [81] ff. By your logic you have no more than a few toes. The article does in fact list Combat artists, including Forced Entry and my exemplars supra; references have been added. Both the label and this band satisfy the criteria specified in WP:BAND#5, and now I see that the band also satisfies WP:BAND#6.
Second, there must be sources sufficient to write a factual article; otherwise the question of notability is moot. The article references are reliable within the context of the statements they support. None are self-published, none are questionable. The xtreemmusic.org bio was apparently written from the album liner notes; most of that information is available in interview [2(18)] supra. Blabbermouth does allow some user content, but the references don't cite user content. Encyclopaedia Metallum isn't cited as a reference; that bio is also apparently abstracted from album liner notes. The "trivial mentions" in [10(15)] [11(16)] [12(17)] supra establish the band's relevance within the contemporary Seattle music scene, perfectly good references in that context. Primary references [3],[4] supra show the band touring nationally with other notable bands, likewise reliable sources for the same reason, and sufficient to demonstrate WP:N per WP:BAND#6 as well. Clearly a factual article can be written from available sources.
WP:BAND is not a secondary "screen" but a topical elaboration of WP:GNG - notice please WP:GNG neatly summarized as element 1. You're parsing the guideline much too finely - a subject "may be notable" if it satisfies any element of WP:BAND, and WP:GNG is "not a guarantee" of WP:N. Two ways of expressing the same notion, I think. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of TVXQ concert tours. Rounded to merge. The predominant guideline-based argument given against outright retention is notability of tours. Whether or not an article is in progress or its subject merely verified to exist aren't valid arguments to address notability. slakr\ talk / 01:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With: Live Tour 2015

With: Live Tour 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This tour has not yet occurred, it has merely been announced, and this article seems to be mostly for WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The tour has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary media. Of the four references listed, three are the group's own website (self-promotion) and one is a mention on the Korean gossip site, Osen. The tour has, at this time, no notability; nothing of significance has been written about it apart from its predicted existence. The article should be written after the tour has concluded, or at least is well underway, and once it has received significant coverage independent of the artist, and there is something to actually say about it aside from it merely having had occurred. Korean online gossip sites (which is most of the Korean "entertainment" sites) do not meet the requirement of being either reliable or independent of the artists. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The beginning of the tour does not guarantee its notability. It must meet WP:NTOUR; sources verifying its existence are not sufficient for an article. Most tours don't merit articles until they are over or at least well underway. This notion many kpop editors have that existence = notability is completely false. Heck, as is obvious by the glut of articles about things that don't even exist yet, many kpop editors believe a mere announcement of something = notability. Shinyang-i (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 02:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right now, CRYSTAL is valid enough as a reason for deletion. Note also that the thing is unreferenced--there is only one secondary source, and it's of questionable reliability; in addition, one single reference can never prove that the tour is notable via our standards; see WP:NTOUR. So, the keep arguments above aren't valid": the one says "waste of time to delete and recreated" but a. there's really no verified content to delete (unless VMS thinks we're here to supply the reader with tour schedules) and b. the argument here is that it's not valid content; "It's a work in progress"--well, that may be so, but there is no indication that this is work on a notable topic; finally, Taylor Swift--yeah, that's no argument at all. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are already enough third party refs (requires various sets of search words including ones like 'tvxq' and 'tohoshinki')(some in Korean and Japanese) available going back to 9/14, that the article will most likely pass GNG as soon as the tour starts, so I simply oppose wastes of time like this. I've already wasted as much of my own time as I am going to. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are in the article. You could link a couple. And passing GNG isn't simply a matter of throwing in references that have some key words in them: NTOUR requires significant discussion of the tour as a tour. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Redirect for at least the next few weeks is a reasonable option. Previous tours have become GNG, so no reason to believe this one won't. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was not delete. There is no consensus between "Keep" and "Move to Draft namespace", I'll leave this to editors to hammer out on the talkpage if someone wishes to pursue it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Djoir

Djoir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:BIO as well as any of the more specific biographical notability criteria. Some appearances in music videos, local competitions, etc. but there doesn't seem to be significant coverage (more than a mention) in multiple reliable sources. With the number of things she's involved with, I think this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am in favor of keeping the article "Djoir", based on the sources on the Wikipedia page and also those listed below. Some of the other cast members of Colby's Clubhouse also possess Wikipedia articles. This would fall under "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions".

References/Citings supporting Djoir Keep:

Carockstar (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Carockstar[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Carockstar (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam C. S.

Sam C. S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. PROD removed by creator. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ralston

AfDs for this article:
Bob Ralston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citations aside from a personal webpage and a directory citation. Afronig (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick google search show's that he is notable, and was clearly the organist for the Lawrence Welk show for 38 years, I agree that references need to be added, but clearly passes WP:BIO. War wizard90 (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on his long service with Lawrence Welk, for which he got surprisingly little coverage; in fact almost everything in the article is unsourced. I wasn't sure what to make of this subject. When I searched for sources, the main thing that cropped up was information about a conviction for child abuse. But the reliable sources had very little information, and the more detailed sources seemed less than solid for that kind of BLP negative info, so I did not add it to the article. On the other hand, that was about the only significant coverage he received, other than the encyclopedic work about TV shows. And since we can't see that entry, we don't know how significant it was. Maybe we should merge this to The Lawrence Welk Show since virtually nothing in the article is verified. --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (pitch) @ 18:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Levy

Niko Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, Niko Levy does not pass our notability requirements for biographies. (But note that there may be some coverage in Hebrew) Pichpich (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (drawl) @ 21:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mamiboys

Mamiboys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a band, which as written strikes a heavily promotional tone, and makes no particularly strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. Further, while on the surface the article looks extensively sourced, closer examination reveals that there are major problems with the referencing as well: (1) most of the sources are unreliable blogs or press releases rather than reliable source coverage; (2) sources 5 through 10 have nothing whatsoever to do with the band, but are sourcing facts about a film that they happened to contribute a song to; (3) sources 14 through 39 are refbombing a single fact; (4) sources 40 through 51 are another refbomb, consisting of 11 different reprints of the same article in 11 different unreliable sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a properly written and properly sourced article about the band can be created, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jaw) @ 14:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 14:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (comment) @ 14:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Bearcat: Any idea if any of their CDs ever charted? Because if they have, that would be enough to establish notability. Also, they appear to have performed songs for some notable films. In the Anime and manga WikiProject, this is sometimes considered enough to establish notability, but I have no idea if this applies to other kinds of media (and obviously, the stuff they performed for aren't anime). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References have been edited accordingly to guidelines. Duplicate reprints have been removed. References are from Notable Press such as Straits Times, The Hindu, Times of India, AsiaOne etc. Only references to movies which talks about the Artist "Mamiboys" have been used as references.

According to WP:NMUSIC, A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

The article meets the following guidelines :

  • Article has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries. The Article "Mamiboys" has been a subject of multiple, published works such as South Indian Films (Thottu Paar, Bindaas, Orange). The music soundtrack of the movies has also been chartered as CDs worldwide. The Artist has also released a music album called "Dum Tea" and references has been provided by notable press too stating the release of the album. - Times of India has mentioned that the Artist Mamiboys have collaborated with south indian music producers such as Harris Jayaraj and Srikanth Deva which is a notable reference.
  • Artist has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. (IMDB Credits which indicates "Mamiboys" as Music for the movie Roadside Ambanis which won the Best film awards for the Norway International Film Festival).

06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisheno (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinvi

Shinvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Random86 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 16:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete –- Fails notability... not enough albums released before disbanding. Monni (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In 2012, ~ten years after they disappeared, they received coverage in reliable sources, Donga Ilbo and Chosun Ilbo. Looks like it was reports of discovering the one member had passed the bar exam. It's hard to find sources from 2002, so hard to know how notable they may have been then, but the 10-years-later attention in major media makes me wonder. No strong opinion either way, but maybe some more searching can be done before deleting? Shinyang-i (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I recognize the issue with sources, but it seems to me that's more an indication that it's hard for mostly English-language speakers to find Korean sources more than a decade after the group has broken up. The fact that it was worth noting in the media that one of the members now has a new career as a lawyer says to me that the group is notable. The is a link that was formerly to Billboard Korea; but it's dead now; the main page www.billboardk.com now has a note in Korean saying that the entire site is now discontinued. I personally remember their music, it kind of surprises me that they've faded to obscurity, but notability is not temporary. It might make sense to post on the talk page for ko:신비_(음악_그룹) and ask for input and sources. TJRC (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Bennett (musician)

Andy Bennett (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independently. I redirected it to Ocean Colour Scene, but this was reverted by IP with no reason given. Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, however Merge into Ocean Colour Scene would be preferable. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst! 19:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional references to Andy Bennett's earlier career with the band he formed "the elements" the band were signed to Acid Jazz Records and released an album that charted in the indie charts. The song caught in a storm of that album reached the top ten of the indie charts as well as the album reaching the top ten. I have also added the information on where Bennett is mentioned in the essential rock discography. Written by martin c strong. Hopefully these two pieces of information will be enough to prevent the article from being deleted. I would appreciate a message if this is not enough and I will endeavour to add as much additional information as I can. Regards Alfie Mahone Alfiemahone1991 (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Comment Thanks for contributing, Alfiemahone1991. I'm assuming you're the Alfie Mahone who is a colleague of Andy Bennett (according to article)? Boleyn (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No I'm not a colleague of his I'm simply a part time musician who is aware of him and his work. Do you now feel that this additional information is enough to keep the article online. Kind regards Alfie Mahone 94.11.54.158 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that Bennett's page should remain on the grounds that some of the other members of Ocean Colour scene are of more Dubious notability then him he has at least written material himself with his own band that has sucessfully charted in the indie charts and recieved critical acclaim. (T Halama) 37.152.35.2 (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No but the second criteria is for notability is that they have had an album which has featured in any music chart for a country which Bennett has which can be mentioned on several websites two of Which are linked to on his page and he was also signed to a major music label that label being acid jazz and released an album under that label. He also wrote and recorded the song old pair of jeans featured on the Saturday album Which reached the top 40 in the UK album charts so all of those factors should be significant evidence for his page to remain. In light of these new additions would appreciate another senior editor of Wikipedias opinion. Alfiemahone1991 (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bergersen

Per Bergersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I quote from the article: "Per Bergersen is considered among many people as the greatest (undiscovered) Norwegian song writer to ever have lived[.]" (my emphasis) One Norwegian documentary is not enough for notability here; possibly there are actual sources (it's not clear that said documentary is one of them) but as it stands there is no real evidence this fellow has any following. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article claims he "in fact was almost unpublished". I agree a radio documentary makes a thin claim for relevance, and the point for the documentary was a scope on the talent rather than a complete artist. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It's been a long time since I seriously contributed to Wikipedia, so pardon me if I'm not doing this the "correct" way.
While Per Bergersen certainly isn't a household name to the average Norwegian, his name is well known is musical circles. He inspired, amongst others the Norwegian black metal band, Mayhem.[1] He was "unpublished" in the sense that he never had a recording contract, but his music was spread on self-published cassettes in the Norwegian alternative music scene during the late 1980s-early 1990s (which is well documented in the Ridder Sjanseløs radio documentary). The documentary in question was made by NRK, the Norwegian equivalent to the BBC as a part of its "Radiodokumentaren" series. Knut Schreiner of Turbonegro wrote an article about Bergersen in the major Norwegian musical magazine ENO[2], and later did an article in Morgenbladet, one of the leading Norwegian newspapers regarding cultural matters.[3] There is also a documentary film in the works by Johnny W. Nyhagen, although the progress on the project seems to have stalled.[4] It should also be noted that the official, posthumous record, PB, is in very high demand, fetching several hundred dollars on Norwegian auction sites (having originally been made in 1000 copies).[5][6] I would argue that his inclusion on Wikipedia is very much justified. Bricklayer (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.nattogdag.no/2014/08/mayhem-tretti-ar-morket/
  2. ^ http://enomagasin.no/issues/2-2/
  3. ^ http://morgenbladet.no/kultur/2010/en_jokke_fra_roros#.VJ2H2ANAdA
  4. ^ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cruiser-Avg%C3%A5rde-en-liten-film-om-Per-N-Bergersen/117578011623507?fref=ts
  5. ^ http://apps.qxl.no/gullkorn/musikk/
  6. ^ http://morgenbladet.no/kultur/2010/en_jokke_fra_roros#.VJ2H2ANAdA
  • Weak keep but tag as "references needed", and hopefully Bricklayer will add the reliable references to the page. I did some searching in Norwegian newspapers and found mentions, but no actual articles. Some of the papers, however, are paywalled so I didn't get very far. LaMona (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. The basic premise of this article is that he could have become a great song writer. So could I! -or you, or anyone. That is not a reason for him to have an article here. Yes, the NRK radio documentary people made a documentary about him....they have written about me, too ([82]), that does not make "Huldra" on English Wikipedia noteworthy. Collectors who have paid silly amounts for this one limited PB-record would of course love him to be "notable"; that´s all I can see. (And yes; I did listen to the you-tube videos; he was a shadow of Jokke & Valentinerne. Sorry for being so harsh, but there is nothing to salvage (article-wise) here. (And please! Are you seriously trying to use Facebook-pages or qxl-pages (that is an auction-site) as sources?? They are totally not WP:RS) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Appears to be lots of mentions, but none that meet our criteria as reliable sources -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah and Julia

Sarah and Julia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article may fail WP:GNG. None of the recorded songs have charted nor do they appear in an album from the artists. They only appeared in a national pre-selection for Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013 of which they did not win the pre-selection to represent their country. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The third source from Oikotimes is unreliable. Prior consensus at WikiProject Eurovision deemed them as unreliable, as anyone can register a profile on the website and publish "news" without sourcing their content. All the other sources only state that they took part in a pre-selection, of which they placed third, so they never got to represent their country at Junior Eurovision. Of the 12 notability points at WP:MUSICBIO, they partially meet the first, the remaining eleven criterion they fail. Wes Mouse | T@lk 00:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to A Pink. Any information worth merging to the main article is still available in the article histories. Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Park Cho-rong

Park Cho-rong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person is not independently notable. Please redirect to the group, A Pink. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Son Na-eun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kim Nam-joo (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oh Ha-young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yoon Bo-mi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hong Yoo-kyung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. — Revi 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the discussion below, I think we can keep. — Revi 04:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Son Naeun, I disagree with the removal because based on WP:ENT, she is notable enough to have her own page. She has notable individual activities such as main cast in variety show, lead actress in Music videos and Dramas. Beside that, she also chosen as a model for couple of brand and won award as "Star of the Year" for her variety show and nominated for "Best new actress" for her drama.
Moreover, Will this deletion applied to all individual group member of other Kpop group too? For example Girl's generation, Girl's Day, EXO etc. i still saw their individual member page even though some of them have similar individual activities with Apink members. For those member who have less notable individual activities, maybe can we do something like this? [83] --Sonflower0210 (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sonflower0210. --EliOrni (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think all the nominated pages can be deleted, except Son Na-eun, who looks quite enciclopedic. --Chiya92 15:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not a technical WP valid reason, but please note the 7 countries/languages which have listed her. This is slightly outside the usual Kpop PR machine context. Mild keep-Augustabreeze (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the issue with many of these articles is that they use sources like Allkpop which is unacceptable for Wikipedia. They have a disclaimer that states: "Information on this site may or may not be true and allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims".... It's possible to replace such sources with legit ones but it will take time and a lot of effort from a Korean member who can understand the Korean articles. I think with proper sourcing the solo pages would follow WP:N but a list page may make more sense for now. SKS (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDB link added. I now formally alter position to keep. -Augustabreeze (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Augustabreeze, I don't know to which article you added something or which one you are proposing to keep. In addition, IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and it certainly does not add the kind of in-depth discussion required by our notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies, I am cognisant that project is under regular assault by the Kpop publishing machine. However, I have added yet another mainstream link. There is Korean Herald coverage on this actress, as well as the Maeil Broadcasting Network which is a nationwide television network in SK. This is not an indie artist struggling to get free publicity. This is a known face/name in SK, and the Portuguese and French have also written articles about her--technically not a WP valid reason, but evidence of international reputation. Brazil knows this woman. It is not a 19 teen year old doing half an hour of self-released youtube a day. With addition of MBN coverage, I reiterate keep. Thank you-Augustabreeze (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- For Yoon Bomi and Park Chorong, I would think that the pages should be kept because they've done enough individual activities (Chorong has acted on quite a few dramas and Bomi has been an MC and member of many variety shows). Moreover, they will most likely continue doing more so I think it would only make sense to keep their pages. - Therealdeepi (talk)
  • Any passing admin (Northamerica1000, you around?), please close this--I withdraw. We got comments that don't clearly indicate who should be kept and who shouldn't, and we got Augustabreeze dictating how someone else's comment should be read, as if they were a mind reader. I'll take care of them individually. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The nominator has withdrawn, but the discussion has received some !votes for redirection, so a speedy keep close doesn't quite qualify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Park Cho-rong and Son Na-eun. They are notable enough to remain having an article. Rongderp (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete except possibly Son Na-eun. All others have no notability outside A Pink. A few cameos and visits to variety shows does not equal notability. Son Na-eun was nominated for some legit acting awards and won some for variety show work. So she might pass the notability test. The awards are referenced to allkpop, but could possibly be confirmed on the award website for accuracy. But is an award for 'We Got Married' really notable? Was that award covered in any reliable sources outside of the awards' own website and gossip sites? If not, then it's not enough to establish notability. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterate keep; Chosun Ilbo coverage; independent feature-length film movie 2009 / imdb.com; Park Cho-rong is an independent actress, a subject independently without any other A Cube members of media coverage. AfD is not a vote and PCR passes WP:MUSIC notability guidelines including article 12, article 1, etc etc etc. A total of FIVE national-level newspapers or broadcast channels independently covering her without any reference or pictures of other A Cube members. -Augustabreeze (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (all) as non-notable. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 18:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again again and again and again again and again. AfD is not a vote. AfD is not a vote. You must specifically cite WP process regulations contradicting last known commentary if reversing on the consensus. Thank you. Please also see The Caraway Group ongoing AfD process breakdown. AfD readers please note that many of the Delete comments above are new accounts/ possible socks. -08:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustabreeze (talk • contribs)
    • Augustabreeze, I'm not sure why you are so worked up over this. None of the accounts that have posted here look suspicious to me. --Random86 (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • 86, [user] does nothing but vote deletes and has all of 7 edits, zero content contribution. The Caraway Group has also degenerated into a "horse-racing" contest where the closing admin just counted "2 deletes, 1 keep" okay it's finished. AfD is not a vote. It is about confirmation of two independent national-level media sources. Thanks eight six -08:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustabreeze (talk • contribs)
  • Redirect Kim Nam-joo (singer), Oh Ha-young, Hong Yoo-kyung these people do not have solo activities which are independently notable of the group. Yookyung is completely dependent on Apink for her notability because she is no longer in the entertainment industry. Naeun definitely does, Bomi has had quite a few long-term mc gigs and I'm undecided on Chorong Asdklf; (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Son Na-eun, Yoon Bomi and Park Cho-rong. For Naeun, I have mention the reasons above.
For Yoon Bo-mi. As other mention, Bomi has been active in a lot of TV shows. She has been MC for more than a year and recently cast for Real Men show. Beside released a song as Apink Subunit, she also released and performed another song collaboration on music show. For Park Cho-rong. She has written 4 full song, she also has acted in 3 dramas and a lead actress in one of them. So beside Naeun and Bomi, she is notable to have their own individual page based on WP:COMPOSER and WP:ENT. I'm not too sure about the other 2 members but this is their individual activities, Namjoo had done two other song collaboration beside released a song with Bomi. Hayoung was a lead actress for two music videos and also have released a song collaboration with other artist. --Sonflower0210 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kelapstick: @Bellerophon:@Neutrality: @Lixxx235: @سعيدس:. Can you guys please help explain to me why you think all of them don't have notability outside the group? Because it seems that all the discussion on this page are one way, so it never reach any conclusion. As i have mention above, I think Son Naeun, Yoon Bomi and Park Chorong are notable to have their own page based on WP:ENT and WP:COMPOSER. Kindly review my two separate explanation about it. Thank you so much --Sonflower0210 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because their articles speak for themselves. Outside of the band, their contributions to entertainment do not rise beyond the level of trivia. Terms like "appearance", "cameo" and "guest co-MC" are analogous with trivia. Bellerophon talk to me 22:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bellerophon: Some of them started their individual acting career as a cameo but have since then moved to bigger role.
- For Son Na-eun. She has notable individual activities such as main cast in variety show for 8 months, supporting/main role (non-cameo) in Dramas and Movie. Beside that, she alone also chosen as a model for couple of brands and won award as "Star of the Year" for her variety show and nominated for "Best new actress" for her drama. So I think based on WP:ENT, she's notable enough.
- For Park Cho-rong. She has fully written 4 song, she also has acted as supporting roles in drama All My Love and lead roles in Plus Nine Boys . So I don't think it's trivia and she is notable to have their own individual page based on WP:COMPOSER and WP:ENT.
- For Yoon Bo-mi. She has been MC for more than a year (more than 70 episodes) for special corner on Weekly Idol, main cast for variety show "Human Condition" Special (3eps) and she recently cast as regular for Real Men variety show. In addition to released a single as Apink Subunit, she also released a song collaboration with other artist and performed it on music show. so based on WP:ENT, I think her individual activities are not trivial and she is notable enough to have her own page.--Sonflower0210 (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have defeated your own argument: they have all only been cast as "supporting" or otherwise minor roles in films, TV or productions. Park's slightly more important role in Plus Nine Boys does not rise to the 'significant roles in multiple notable films or other productions' required by WP:ENT. Also, WP:COMPOSER makes it quite clear that a person who scrapes by as a composer but otherwise lacks enough notability or reliable sources to write a detailed biographical article should be merged and redirected to the parent/most relevant article. Your arguments for keeping these articles are writ large in this AfD, I do not support them because I believe your interpretation of the relevant policies is flawed. Quit filibustering please. Bellerophon talk to me 18:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I never said "they have all only been cast as "supporting", I said they got some supporting and main roles. Also Supporting roles here is not minor roles or cameo but someone who's carry significant roles but not necessarily the lead actress. Isn't it the definition of Supporting actor? For example, Lupita Nyong'o got award "Best supporting actress" for "12 Years a Slave". She's not the lead actress because there are several major roles in that movie but it was a significant role.
Moreover, Son Naeun role in Childless Comfort was a lead role just like Park Chorong in Nine boys. Both were on the drama poster and also went to the press conference to promote the dramas which only be done by those who got significant roles. Both drama have no single lead role, but several main roles similar with TV Show How I Met Your Mother. On top of that, Son Naeun was also a main cast in variety show "We Got Married" for 8 months beside acted as supporting roles in "The Great Seer" drama and "Marrying the Family" movie. She win award for her variety show and nominated for her acting. She was also chosen as a model for couple of brand alone without her group member. Therefore just like Yoon Bomi, I think Son Naeun has 'significant roles in multiple notable films or other productions' required by WP:ENT. As for Park Chorong, beside her lead role in Nine boys, she also has supporting roles in "All My Loves" drama and she was appeared on 85 episodes so she also had significant multiple roles too.
I saw other group like Backstreet Boys and Nsync, Some of them also don't have a lot of individual notability outside the group, but why they can have an individual page? --Sonflower0210 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although there are a few editors vehemently arguing for this article to stay, their arguments failed to sway a majority of editors !voting delete citing policy-based arguments. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Prill

AfDs for this article:
Johnny Prill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanispamcruftisement. Not notable. Winning one of one years National Grandparents' Day council's songwriting contests is not a major award. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Gets a little bit of local interest coverage but nothing significant. Scans of personal letters is not coverage in reliable sources.
Note that the so called "National Grandparents' Day website" is his own personal website.
He claims to have the "official" song but who makes it official? The National Grandparents Day Council of Chula Vista, California. Who are they? A self created council with no official authority. What makes what they say official for a public holiday? Nothing. Was the song official for only the year in which he won the contest then official goes on to the next winner? We don't know cause it's a minor contest reliable sources don't seem to be covering and the only info we are getting is coming from Prill himself. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (relate) @ 14:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: appears to be an attempt at passing GNG by sheer volume of trivial mentions, non-independent sources, and local sources. 0+0+0=0 Vrac (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One hell of a self-promoter here, but all those one-sentence mentions? As far as the GNG's concerned, 0+0+0+0+0 still equals zero. The nom's reasoning's pretty good. Nha Trang Allons! 21:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Weisenbach, Traci L. (2011-08-26). "Prill wins statewide volunteer award". Huron Daily Tribune. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.

      The article notes:

      Music and volunteering have been two very important pieces of Johnny Prill’s life since he was a boy. This year, he’s receiving a special honor for doing both at Courtney Manor for 25 years.

    2. Treadwell, Matt (2004-09-10). "Prill's song chosen as official 2004 Grandparents Day anthem". Huron Daily Tribune. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.

      The article notes:

      "We're being tied into National Grandparents Day - a national holiday. That's a big honor and hard to top," Prill said.

      That's no small statement coming from a musician who has had five of his songs picked up and sung by "The Polish Price" himself - Bobby Vinton.One of Prill's songs, "Polka Radio," can be heard on Vinton's Greatest Polka Hits of All Time.

    3. "Johnny Prill to host Grandparent's Day concert on Sept. 7". Huron Daily Tribune. 2008-08-21. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2015-01-05.

      The article notes:

      Prill, who is the writer of the Official Song of National Grandparents Day, “A Song for Grandma and Grandpa,” is Courtney Manor’s longest running volunteer, entertaining residents once a month for over 20 years.

      Prill said: “This concert is a family affair and we’re excited to have this opportunity to honor our nation’s grandparents.”

      In a recent interview, Prill had the opportunity to talk about his grandparents, his volunteer work at local nursing homes, and what inspired him to write “A Song for Grandma and Grandpa.”

    4. Unscintillating (talk · contribs) wrote at the previous AfD:

      Here is a Highbeam preview of a 2004 article about Prill in the Polish-American Journal and here is an amusing music review in the lasvegasmercury that is comparable to the review already cited in the article from the Las Vegas Weekly.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    5. "Prill song on Sturr CD". Huron County View. 2011-09-08. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.

      The article notes:

      Local songwriter Johnny Prill has a song on a new CD. “Polish Prince," about Bobby Vinton, is on “Not Just Another Polka,” by 18-time Grammy Award winner "Jimmy Sturr and his Orchestra." The Starr Records release features 12 tracks in all.

      Prill said he was elated when he received the news that his song “Polish Prince” would be included on Sturr's new disc. “I've always been a big fan of Jimmy Sturr and his Orchestra, and when I received an advanced copy of the disc, I was thrilled. It meant that Bobby Vinton would be honored with my song performed by a top-notch band like the Jimmy Sturr Orchestra,” said Prill.

    6. "Prill song on Grammy-nominated CD". Huron County View. 2012-01-19. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.

      The article notes:

      Singer/songwriter Johnny Prill was thrilled when he was notified that Jimmy Sturr & His Orchestra’s new CD “Not Just Another Polka”, which includes Prill’s composition "Polish Prince," had been nominated for a Grammy. Now, Prill is looking forward to the 54th Annual Grammy Awards on Feb. 12, to see if his song will be part of a Grammy award winning CD. Sturr's CD was nominated in the Best Regional Roots Album category. The Grammys will be broadcast live at 8 p.m. on CBS.

    7. "Johnny Prill to present free concert for National Grandparents Day". Huron County View. 2010-09-05. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
    8. "Polka CD Reviewed in Detroit Papers". Polish-American Journal. 2005-02-28. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07 – via HighBeam Research. (subscription required)

      The article notes:

      Johnny Prill's CD The Polka Beat was reviewed in the January 2, 2005 edition of the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press. The article entitled "Bad Axe Polka King Keeps it Fresh," was written by John Smyntek and included a picture of Johnny.

    9. Smyntek, John (2005-01-02). "Bad Axe Polka King Keeps it Fresh". Detroit Free Press.
    10. "Johnny Prill Wins National Songwriter's Award". Polish-American Journal. 2004-10-31. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07 – via HighBeam Research. (subscription required)
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Johnny Prill to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC) More sources added. Cunard (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Huron Daily Tribune articles are very local (County has a population of <35,000) indiscriminate puff pieces. None are significant coverage. The Polish-American Journal "article" is a reproduction of a press release, not independent. The amusing review is trivial. Not enough coverage for WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such hyper-local sources tend to be overly indiscriminate about what they publish, as these articles clearly are. They should be dismissed as not significant coverage.

    That one piece discussing "the official song" is another reason this source should be dismissed, a lack of fact checking so not a reliable source. The song is not the official song for the day. Where did they get that info? Straight from Prill? They did not get it from the press release from National Grandparents Council of Chula Vista. They just said the he won their 2004 songwriters award. Did they do any fact checking? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Detroit Free Press is one source of unknown size.

    They got it from the United States Census website? Bullshit! They did not get it from a source that did not yet exist.

    Articles, such as that Roanoke piece, that source Wikipedia for trivia tidbits are not reliable sources.

    Are there any sources outside Bad Axe that say that before that bit of info, misrepresenting sources used, was spammed into Wikipedia by a SPA promoting Prill? Such as around the time it supposedly happened, back in 2004? Or are they all after May 20112006? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • They got it from the United States Census website? Bullshit! They did not get it from a source that did not yet exist. – I do not know (nor do you) where they got that information from. But it is evident that they are correct. The United States Census' information confirms they are correct.

    There is no evidence that the Roanoke piece sourced anything from Wikipedia. You are making stuff up.

    Cunard (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a single source of this info from 2004 when it supposedly happened? Is there any mention predating it's introduction into Wikipedia? Is there any mentions that go beyond mentioning this trivia titbit? The 2014 United States Census trivia collection just reproduces that claim, no indication of where that info came from.

    Where does that claim come from? An SPA dedicated to promoting Prill introduced that "fact" unsourced to Wikipedia. No press mentions exist before then. They only started after that time. Lazy journos sourcing from Wikipedia. Another SPA dedicated to promoting Prill re-introduced that "fact" With sources. The sources used, 1 National Grandparents Council press release that does not say that the song is the official song. 2. "Editorial. Happy Grandparents Day!.". The Manila Bulletin Newspaper Online, a paper which quotes directly from this version of a Wikipedia page. "."In 2004, the National Grandparents Day Council of Chula Vista, California announced that "A Song for Grandma and Grandpa’’ by Johnny Prill is the official song of the National Grandparents Day holiday.US Senator Debbie Stabenow told Prill that "it is wonderful that ‘A Song for Grandma And Grandpa’ was chosen as the official song of National Grandparents Day. You have put into words the unique relationship between grandparents and their grandchildren." Lazy Journo copying from Wikipedia but at least they admit it, "Other countries celebrate National Grandparents Day on different dates, the Wikipedia said." Two sources, one does not verify the claim, the other is Wikipedia itself. After that dodgy reintroduction of the claim it again appears in press as a trivia titbit. It's a claim that has been repeatedly removed from Wikipedia but has been reintroduced by SPA promoting Prill but not providing any Valid verification.

    What does The National Grandparents Day Council [84], the organisation that supposedly made this declaration, have to say about Prill and his song? Their press release says nothing about it being the official song of the U.S. National Grandparents Day holiday. It just says it he is "the winner of the the 2004 Grandparents Day National Songwriter's Award." And their website? It says nothing.

    What does Johnny Prill's press release of 23 August 2010 say about the song. "He penned the official National Grandparents Day Song". Is he the source of this claim? duffbeerforme (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I stand corrected on the website. In 2006 a page posted on the National Grandparents Day Council of Chula Vista's website called it the official song of the day. I still stand by my position that this self created corporation maybe saying so does not make it THE official song of National Grandparents Day. The lack the authority. It just makes it the official National Grandparents Day Council's song of National Grandparents Day, not a major thing. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for consideration of sources posted above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source is a 1993 article about Johnny Prill in the Huron Daily Tribune:

    Oglenski, Debbie (1993-09-25). "The family that plays together". Huron Daily Tribune. Retrieved 2015-01-07.

    The article begins:

    Family has a high priority in Johnny Prill's life, and that's apparent in his latest audio cassette, 'My Sweet Rose'...'For this last album we cut 14 tunes and we picked 10,' Prill said.

    Cunard (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject has in depth reporting from the Detroit Free Press, the Huron Daily Tribune (apparently owned by Hearst Corp), and Huron County View. In terms of reliability, DFP and HDT would seem okay. It is not clear if HCV has a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" per WP:RS. I haven't been able to access the Diario Las Américas reference, nor the The Manila Bulletin Newspaper Online one. The article minimally meets the requirements of WP:GNG, having significant coverage in multiple (here at least two) reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Assuming good faith with regard to HCV and the inaccessible sources, there may be five reliable sources. It has many references that are to the same repeated sources. But even when regarded as one source, it still passes for notability. Some of the references should absolutely be removed, but the article does not appear to cross the threshold for WP:PROMOTION nor other WP:NOT criteria. Therefore, there is not an appropriate rationale for deletion.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diario Las Américas reference does not have any depth of coverage of Prill. The Manila Bulletin Newspaper is sourced from Wikipedia. There is no evidence of depth of in depth reporting in Detroit Free Press. That leaves local coverage only. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I don't. I read Diario Las Américas last time it was introduced at afd. Manila is available through Factiva. The article I quoted is their initial piece on the day (September 12, 2009) The followup editorial (used as a source) repeats much of that piece without providing attribution. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have asked the nominator of the 2nd afd for clarification. What does he remember about the coverage from Detroit press? duffbeerforme (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage linked above is mostly from a very local paper with limited coverage, and does not pass the threshold. The only other sources are press releases that also fail to mention him entirely, or only mention him in passing. I don't remember much of the Detroit Free Press coverage, and they don't have an archive, but I remember it being only one-sentence mentions here and there, and maybe one review at best. The only other coverage I remember is a single paragraph in Country Weekly that said nothing more than the fact that he name-dropped Alan Jackson in a song. The only hits on Google Books are one-sentence mentions of his "Grandparents" song or false positives. Overall, there are only 327 unique hits for his name on Google. It is clear that he is not notable outside a small hub in the Thumb of Michigan if at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I rarely !vote on a popular music AfD, but this seems a very clear case of hype and making a big deal out of minor accomplishments. I suspect news stories of the type presented here to be very much influenced by PR, and local coverage of local artists and writers is not usually considered sufficiently discriminating here for the purposes of notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He created a song that is now "the official song of the U.S. National Grandparents Day holiday". He gets ample coverage for this and not just in America. In the Filipino newspaper Manila Bulletin, he gets coverage, and it says US Senator Debbie Stabenow told Prill that "it is wonderful that "A Song for Grandma And Grandpa" was chosen as the official song of National Grandparents Day. You have put into words the unique relationship between grandparents and their grandchildren." [85] Highbeam list various other newspapers covering him. [86] If your work receives that much attention, then you are a notable artist. Dream Focus 23:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dream Focus: I wasn't aware that creating a song for a non-notable holiday made you notable. Also, the sources you're linking are about the holiday or grandparents in general, with Prill only being mentioned in passing. I also wasn't aware that being passingly name-dropped was the same as significant coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The American government has declared it an official national holiday. It is celebrated in other nations as well. So how is it you decided its a "non-notable holiday"? And he clearly passes WP:CREATIVE #3 "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Dream Focus 11:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dream Focus: Again, he is not the primary subject of the sources. The holiday is. The sources only mention him very, very, very passingly. He's literally one sentence in an article about something else entirely. I was mentioned in an article on a local shopping mall; does that make me notable? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dream Focus: Are you intentionally ignoring the "passing mention" part? He is not the subject of the sources. The holiday is, with him only mentioned in passing. How much clearer can I make this before you finally see it? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • His work has not been the subject of multiple newspapers, just a few passing mentions as an item of trivia. His work (no sign of it being popular) is not THE official song of the day (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "his work" I was referring to that song that was being discussed.

    That council don't get to pick the official song for a US Government holiday. The US government that made it an official US holiday gets to do that, not a little self created corporation.

    It is an extraordinary claim that that horrid little song is the official song for a US holiday. We have very ordinary evidence for this claim. Mentioned in passing as an item of trivia. Mentioned in passing by a self created corporation. That page on their website looks more like they are hosting an advert for Prill than anything written by them. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Coverage of the subject seems to be mostly limited to local publications and I don't personally agree that creating "the official song of the U.S. National Grandparents Day holiday" is a credible indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO. He appears to be somewhat locally notable but no more than that—note that link is to a failed proposal. Locally notable ≠ notable. Bellerophon talk to me 18:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's why I said "mostly limited to...". Unless I have missed something, and I am known to make mistakes, it's still the only non-local source that lends significant coverage. Which is not in my opinion sufficient. I commend your efforts to find sources Cunard, and your arguments have swayed me previously. But not on this occasion. Bellerophon talk to me 23:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is mostly built on material from a self-published website and a local newspaper. The most credible source appears to be a review of a CD in a non-national newspaper. There is not enough credible evidence supplied in the article nor in this discussion to establish notability. The main claim for notability appears to be that he wrote a song. The song redirects to the article. So which is notable, the song or the author? If the song itself isn't notable, then the main claim to notability has gone. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My second preference (after "keep") is redirect to National Grandparents Day (with the history preserved under the redirect) (where Prill and his song are mentioned). As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:

    The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.

    A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.

    Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.

    In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.

    See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect (permanent link). Cunard (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bands and musicians Templates for deletion

Categories

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bands_and_musicians&oldid=642747143"