Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Related deletion sorting


Music

[edit]

Singa (karaoke)

[edit]
Singa (karaoke) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a "karaoke streaming service", not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:CORP. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain defined notability criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage in media -- but this is referenced mainly to primary sources, such as the company's own self-published website about itself and press releases issued by another company that this company struck a business contract with, that are not support for notability -- and what there is for proper third-party coverage comes entirely from limited circulation business trade magazines that are largely just rewriting the press releases, rather than GNG-worthy coverage or analysis in real media.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the company from having to pass GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on stronger sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King's Wood Symphony

[edit]
King's Wood Symphony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contains only two sources (both of which are primary), and a Google search returns very few sources. Issues regarding WP:COPYVIO are mentioned on the article's talk page. I don't think this symphony qualifies for a standalone article unfortunately. 11WB (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further analysis, it appears neither source exists at present (unsure how long they've been unavailable). A Google search also only returns webpages from the composer himself, none of which are usable. I believe my reasons given qualify this article for deletion. 11WB (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Voice Awards

[edit]
Children's Voice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources covering this. (The article on Lithuanian Wikipedia is also unreferenced) ApexParagon (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANTHM

[edit]
ANTHM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wp:GNG, Wp:MUSICIAN, and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamani Srinath

[edit]
Nagamani Srinath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Winning an award does not grant inherent notability. Sources are mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per nom. SachinSwami (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Wikidata merge. I understand your contention but do not believe notability is inherent for simply winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 OK, looking at WP:MUSICBIO, criteria 7 and 8 appear to be met, unless you consider that 8 only applies to western popular music. PamD 19:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think something on the level the award is being claimed to be would fall under that criteria so Western/India would have no bearing. What I am saying is that even with an award, we still need significant coverage. Just winning an award does not guarantee notability. It even specifically says "may" be notable under that criteria. The sources we have are pour such as this (presented in the comment below) which is clearly unreliable as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, Nagamani Srinath was also honored with the Rajyotsava Award in 1998, the second-highest civilian honor conferred by the Karnataka Government[1]. Furthermore, according to an article published in The New Indian Express on June 22, 2015, she was awarded the Sangita Kala Acharya Award by the Madras Music Academy, Chennai, for her outstanding contributions to the field of Carnatic music[2].-SachinSwami (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to this source she has won some other notable awards such as Karnataka Kalashree. Also she has significant coverage in The Hindu and Deccan Herald.Afstromen (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Afstromen, all the sources I included don’t fully support the claim; they are all weak. Mentioning an award alone isn’t enough; you need sources that clearly reference Nagamani Srinath’s work, like a review. For example, in Akaal: The Unconquered, when I checked, all the sources you added were weak. Later, I searched and added 5 reviews in the Reception section, which are sufficient to fully support the film and pass WP:GNG. Though the rules for films and individuals differ, reviews clearly referencing the work are sufficient for support. (I have no intention of misleading editors, so I apologize.) SachinSwami (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Afstromen: you duplicated one of the sources which could indicate you did not look closely enough at them to see they are mainly routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 Are you talking about The Hindu article or both?Afstromen (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You listed the DH twice in your comment. Both the DH and The Hindu are her giving the information by the way. Interviews and all content provided by her so not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Petersens

[edit]
The Petersens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. Current article cannot be brought up to standard. Current article uses almost entirely links to the band's own website to support the included statements. I have spent several hours looking for non-affiliated, reputable sources, and I do not believe there is significant, meaningful sources about this band that can support this article. All third party sources that I can find rely heavily on what appears to be press materials from the band, interviews with members of the band, or do not have meaningful, in-depth coverage (such as an announcement of a concert). Article appears likely to have been mostly written by individuals connected to band.

2. Band does not meet notability threshold. The nearest criteria that I can find to apply is that they have completed international concert tour, BUT I cannot find "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources" about the tour. The most significant source I can find is linked from the current article:

The Petersens tour the Emerald Isle, Bluegrass Today, February 12, 2019. "Soulful family band The Petersens set for Whangārei, Kerikeri shows". NZ Herald.

but coverage is fairly superficial, and this is the only source of this quality that I am able to find. Driftingdrifting (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not super experienced with band notability. They clearly have toured internationally. And there are enough sources to at least create a stub based on reliable sources. Is that enough? --Jahaza (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pulling the links. Yeah, there are a third party sources, but I don't think they meet the criteria of "non-trival coverage in independent reliable sources". The coverage is not particularly in depth, and these are fairly small publications. Driftingdrifting (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royal College Choir

[edit]
Royal College Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SCHOOLCRUFT There is no indication as to why this school choir qualifies as notable. Obi2canibe (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narode Makedonski

[edit]
Narode Makedonski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This song appears to lack notability. This source is the only reliable secondary source I could find about it. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2025 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Piccioli

[edit]
Luigi Piccioli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

clearly fails WP:GNG FMSky (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If it's true that Luigi Piccioli taught Peter Tchaikovsky and others including Bogomir Korsov, then deletion would be deeply inappropriate. Even a minimal biography of a teacher of one of the world’s most renowned composers — and of a prominent Russian baritone — is inherently notable. Wikipedia is not harmed by keeping a well-categorized, accurate one-liner on a 19th-century figure who played a role in music history. Deletion, on the other hand, would erase a potentially valuable record. Does it need more? Perhaps. But definitely keep. – Eurodog (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. GNG is the standard, but it is not the only path to notability. If a historical figure was a teacher of Tchaikovsky, then notability is almost certainly inherited and documented in musicological sources. I am looking for sources now. But deletion before attempting a minimal improvement seems premature.
For musicians, notability is also addressed in WP:MUSICBIO, which allows inclusion for those “who have made a significant contribution to the development or performance of music.” Teaching Tchaikovsky qualifies. – Eurodog (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2025 (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.

Terp (music industry jargon)

[edit]
Terp (music industry jargon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This article is just a definition, etymology, and usage examples of a jargon term; that's a dictionary entry. I don't see evidence that this article can be expanded significantly beyond a dictionary entry for this term. —Bkell (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Virtually devoid of content anyways. Could be mentioned at "dance" (essentially its definition) but I'm not sure a redirect is even worth it - that sort of disambiguation isn't likely to be searched for. 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article "Terp (music industry jargon)" is verifiable, properly sourced, and documents a historical term used pervasively in the music and dance entertainment industry, especially in the mid-20th century.
I don't want to clutter this AfD discussion. But, here, I will step-out on a limb to show how prevalent the word ("terp" not "terpsichore") is, as a standard music industry term. Click on any of the below 277 issues of Billboard (from 1945–1949) where, in nearly every issue, the word "terp" is used – usually multiple times per issue. The term appeared consistently in Billboard's professional discourse — as a noun ("terp orchestra", "terp band"), verb ("to terp"), and adjective ("terp tempo").
Examples (short list):
    1. "Good dancers can terp without music" — Billboard. Vol. 58, no. 37. September 14, 1946. p. 3
    2. "Notch above terp trivia" — Billboard. Vol. 61, no. 50. December 10, 1949. p. 39
    3. "Terp number" = dance arrangement
    4. "Terp orchestra" = dance orchestra
This isn't WP:NOTDICT — the article includes etymology, historical usage, and is easily expandable with a section on "Usage in trade publications." Merging into "Dance" or "Terpsichore" would lose the specialized industrial context. This is not a general word — it's a trade term with decades of industry use.
Wikipedia should preserve — not erase — documented historical language used in cultural industries. – Eurodog (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before changing my stance, I'm still curious what direction you'd go in to expand it out of a basic dictionary entry. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, textbook case of WP:NOTDICT. Eurodog said above:

    This isn't WP:NOTDICT — the article includes etymology, historical usage, and is easily expandable with a section on "Usage in trade publications."

    But yes, this is exactly what NOTDICT talks about. Articles should generally be about the concept represented by a word, not about the word itself, which clearly isn't the case here. Words have a pretty high bar for notability, and this isn't even close. Tracing usage like this without secondary coverage further violates WP:NOR. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note:I have removed a ridiculous list of 277 cite templates that are just 277 links to old Billboard magazine articles that use it from a 4 year span or so in the '40s. If you really want to look at it, you can view the old revision that has it here. It was 50k of wikitext that could have been summed up in like 2 setences, making editing a major pain in the ass. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Waley Babu

[edit]
DJ Waley Babu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC Some sources do not meet WP:SignificantCovwerage, others are WP:PRIMARY, and some are not WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by DankPedia (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jugovizija

[edit]
Jugovizija (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been researching past Yugoslav national finals using newspaper archives with the aim of improving the currently existing articles which are reliant on fansites for information, a clear breach of WP:RS.

So far I have researched the national finals of 1961-1976 using the Digital Library of Slovenia and my progress so far can be seen on my Sandbox. I plan on doing the remaining 1981-1992 national finals, as well as using newspaper archives from other former Yugoslav countries. However, I can already make a case for the deletion of this article.

In the Digital Library of Slovenia, only 1987, 1990, and 1991 have been referred to as Jugovizija and the national final has only been referred to that in TV guides in 1990.[1][2][3] However, this article has added the name Jugovizija post hoc to every national final before then; and even to Yugoslavia's only internal selection in 1963 which went unnamed.[4] Most Yugoslav national finals had a different name from year to year, with the only consistency being 1973-1976 where they used the Opatija Festival [hr], a previously unrelated competition, as their national selection.[5] Pasting the Jugovizija name over this is inaccurate, and would be like putting the name Italovision on editions of the Sanremo Music Festival which were used as national finals. The name Jugovizija implies that these shows were part of a series of shows, when in reality they are a disconnected set of shows only united by a similar premise, that being to select the Yugoslav entry for the Eurovision Song Contest. Using Ireland as an example, they are as different to each other as the National Song Contest 1970, Eurosong 1996, and a 2025 episode of the Late Late Show are.

In addition to the problems surrounding the name, the article is full of factual inaccuracies, owing to the fact it only cites three sources, two of which being the same fansite. As already mentioned, it lists Yugoslavia's 1963 internal selection as a national final. Says that the contest was originally called Jugovizija in 1961, when it was actually called Pesem Evrovizije and Evrovizija 1961 in TV guides.[6][7] And claims that the format of the 1971 national final had the subnational broadcasters submit entries, when it was actually an exception in this way.[8]

All of these reasons listed above lead me to think that Jugovizija is a name that JRT used only a few times in the late 80s and 90s which fans have adopted to refer to the national finals. It is a fun name for a national final, but I think this article is misrepresentative of Yugoslav national finals and this information would be better represented with more detailed per-year articles on Yugoslav national finals, which I am working on. However, in these articles, I would not be opposed to adding a line after stating the actual name of the national final that says something along the lines of: "The national final, along with every other Yugoslav national final, has also been called Jugovizija post hoc by fans of the Eurovision Song Contest", as long as I can find a suitable source for this statement.Spleennn (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Stop". Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 29, no. 60. Ljubljana. 13 March 1987. p. 16. Retrieved 29 May 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.
  2. ^ "Spored za Soboto - Televizija - Zagreb I" [Schedule for Saturday - Television - Zagreb I]. Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 32, no. 64. Ljubljana. 17 March 1990. p. 14. Retrieved 29 May 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.
  3. ^ "Ostale bodo le pesmi" [Only Songs Will Remain]. Novi Tednik (in Slovenian). Vol. 45, no. 21. 30 May 1991. p. 26. Retrieved 29 May 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.
  4. ^ "Londonski Lekcija" [London's Lesson]. Panorama (in Slovenian). Vol. 1, no. 13. Glas. 30 March 1963. p. 5. Retrieved 21 March 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.
  5. ^ Galić, Mirko, ed. (2016). "Opatijski festival" [Opatija Festival]. Leksikon Radija i Televizije [Lexicon of Radio and Television] (PDF) (in Croatian) (2 ed.). Hrvatska radiotelevizija. pp. 368–369. ISBN 978-953-303-912-1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 March 2021. Retrieved 1 May 2025.
  6. ^ "Obvestila - Spored - Mali Oglasi: RTV" [Announcements - Schedule - Small Ads: RTV]. Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 2, no. 22. Ljubljana. 24 January 1961. p. 9. Retrieved 20 March 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.
  7. ^ "Tedenski Program Radia Ljubljana od 12. do 19. Februarja 1961: Četrtek II. Program" [Weekly Program of Radio Ljubljana from 12th to 19th February 1961: Thursday II. Program]. Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 3, no. 40. Ljubljana. 11 February 1961. p. 9. Retrieved 20 March 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.
  8. ^ G., V. (7 February 1971). "Najbolša v Dublin: Jugoslovanski final za „Pesem Evrovizije"" [The best in Dublin: Yugoslav final for the “Eurovision Song”]. Delo (in Slovenian). Vol. 13, no. 35. Ljubljana. p. 5. Retrieved 21 April 2025 – via Digital Library of Slovenia.
  • Thank you for your detailed analysis Spleennn, and your continued work to improve articles related to Yugoslavia's history in the Eurovision Song Contest! Given the country's last appearance was in 1992 obviously the number of primary sources on the subject available online is significantly reduced as this is from a pre-internet era, so the country's history in the contest is very much shrouded in mystery somewhat, leading to this kind of article on the topic. Jugovizija is a very well-known name within the Eurovision community to refer to all Yugoslav Eurovision selections, whether they were titled as such or not at the time by JRT or within Yugoslav media, and I do think there is a case to retain the article as either a redirect to Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest, or, similar to the article on Russian Eurovision selections, as a standalone article which lists information on Yugoslav selections but also caveats that the title may not have been used at the time. However, given the lack of inline references, the reliance on unreliable fan site external links which clearly violate WP:ELNO, the lack of substantial article history, and the overall fact that the majority of assertions within this article are completely unbacked by reliable sources, I would support deleting this article completely. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems easy enough to just merge and redirect to Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest, it's a vaguely plausible search term. --Joy (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen (singer)

[edit]
Gwen (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BANDMEMBER, no indication of notability outside of being in her group. orangesclub 🍊 00:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a summary for passing significant coverage of Gwen, for participating this AfD)
  • Billboard Philippines: Gwen was featured on notable magazine of Billboard Philippines where she talks about her life and being a housemate on Pinoy Big Brother: Otso.
  • Vogue Philippines: She featured also in this notable magazine with her fashion stating of Vogue writer Bianca Custodio describing her Gwen's fashion "60's mod-inspired" and "the girls take a break from their usual image, donning bobbed wigs of varying shapes and cuts."
  • Parcinq: Parcinq is a Philippine magazine and Gwen was featured in this magazine as a cover pf the magazine. Gwen also shares on her life on this magazine with Parcinq describes the fashion of Gwen as "Black symbolizes death, darkness, and the mysteries of the universe." ROY is WAR Talk! 01:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If these are WP:INTERVIEWs then these are most likely fail WP:RS and therefore fail WP:GNG regardless if such activities make her surpass WP:BANDMEMBER. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. All of them are passed in WP:RS since it was a reliable and have significant coverage with Gwen's fashion with given sources. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly haven't read WP:INTERVIEW? Even if this person was interviewed by the Times of London about her life and career, it would fail WP:RS. Reliable sources, while also considers who published it, considers how it was created. Interviews arw autobiographical.
    With being said, Billboard was indeed an interview, while the other two were fashion editorials with an interview interspersed on it. I can figure fashion editorials can be used as WP:RS if somebody else reports on it. All of these are primary and fails WP:RS.
    Again, competence is required. If an article is primarily based on interviews, and on ABS-CBN and Youtube, it has no place here. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I already read it earlier (LOL). It is clearly passed in WP:RS it is notable magazines like Vogue Philippines and Billboard Philippines they have high credibility on this magazine or company so it is a reliable source and passed on WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV . They are not a "cheap" magazines whatsoever and they are Professionally edited publications, and independent. It is not merely trivial or promotional, it also applied on WP:NBASIC which is passed also. It really matters who publishes it, is it unreliable or not? In this case, Billboard and Vogue and Parcinq are reliable (highly on Billboard and Vogue since they are the top reliable). Also, it is not a uncontroversial claims. The interview are usually primary sources, but when conducted and published by reliable third party sources with highly reputable source, they are acceptable.
    Again, this is my last argument on this and it is clearly will go over and over on this, and obviously clearly mentioning ABS-CBN and YouTube, Vogue Billboard PH and ABS-CBN, YouTube are different (LOL). ROY is WAR Talk! 07:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not if the source is cheap or not (hence the Times of London analogy); it's whether or not the source is the subject herself. You clearly haven't read WP:INTERVIEW. The closing admin should take notice of willful ignorance of the arguments being presented to you. I guess we won't need another relist. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INTERVIEW § Who, what, where Is this a reliable source such as a broadsheet newspaper, respected magazine, reliable broadcaster or news outlet that specializes in interviews? In this case, Billboard PH, Vogue Philippines and Parcinq are reliable.
    Also on WP:INTERVIEW, independent or non-independent of the subject matter, it is clearly demonstrate that Billboard PH and Vogue Philippines are independent, this is a most likely a WP: IDONTLIKEIT argument, I gave you all my arguments but you insisting that Billboard and Vogue are not reliable. The issue of "willful ignorance" as might be a attacking me. Is that there's no policy basis for excluding a well sourced, editorially controlled interview published by an RS from notability consideration. This is not applied to Gwen, this is all applied to all musicians also that interview like New York Times, Original Billboard and Original Vogue if you exclude that, half of WP:BIO wouldn't exist. ROY is WAR Talk! 07:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if it's from the Times of London, Vogue Italia, Billboard USA, or Yes Magazine; WP:INTERVIEW#Independence states "The interviewee may or may not be independent of the subject matter. In some cases, the interviewer is also not independent. For example:
    Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source."
    In other words, a person talking about oneself in any publication or medium (print, TV, internet) fails WP:RS. As per WP:INTERVIEW#Notability: "Anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent, and therefore does not support a claim for notability."
    Now, you could argue there may had been some synthesis on those three articles, but if we're really basing the notability of this person, aside from being a WP:BANDMEMBER, it'll take more than these sources. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, somehow are accurate but it doesn't mean you cannot use it. The interviewee may or may not be independent of the subject matter. In some cases, the interviewer is also not independent. this applies to the statement made by the subject, not the entire interview article.
    On WP:INTERVIEW: It is okay to use interviews to source some facts. Interviews may sometimes be the best or clearest sources, especially for biographical or personal information and as I said it is clearly independent, have significant coverage, and reliable since it was editorially controlled. and Billboard Philippines and Vogue Philippines are the one who interviewed the subject and it is not a conflict of interest. Independent sources are more generally reliable than sources that have a conflict of interest or are otherwise involved in the subject. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To explain further, "source" in interview is the interviewee (the one being interviewed), not the one doing the interview (the journalist in behalf of the publication). This is explained in "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source." If the article is about the life and times of the interviewee, then that leaves wiggle room for secondary sources.
    To reiterate, it doesn't matter if the publication is what you'd consider" high quality".
    Remember, encyclopedias are tertiary sources, so it should have filtered the secondary sources, which should had done the same with the primary source. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By now, the article has been culled of her activities with other Bini members. The article now boils to:
  • Her auditioning for Star Hunt Academy (I think that thing was not called "Star Hunt Auditions"), but then the next sentence says she auditioned for Big Brother first(?)... so which is which???
  • A section supposedly describing activities since 2021 but only starts in 2024 on a social media incident where she asked for privacy. Then the rest of paragraphy is reactions soup.
  • Her being WP:INTERVIEWed in Billboard Philippines... I guess the word count increases if you add the name of the interviewer?
  • Her fashion sense.
  • Her being an ABS-CBN talent being one of the best dressed in the ABS-CBN Ball... and more fashion sense and no actual modeling.
FWIW, none of these merits inclusion in a BLP article. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FyaVerse

Music Proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Music&oldid=1295410766"