Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

WP:DSMUSIC

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Music

YC Newfoundland

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

An almost identical article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Conference (Christian) about a year ago, I can't find anything on the subject except blog posts and primary promotional material. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Religion. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cher Special Gigs

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

Notability, only seems to cover one month in 2013 Engrigg22 (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, Russia, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:GNG. No obvious inclusion criteria also. Ajf773 (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only thing these three shows have in common is that they took place in the same month, but that is not a tour that could qualify for an article per WP:NTOUR, and there is not even any possible title to use for an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senegal Music Awards

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

This article was created in 2009 by an WP:SPA, and has been unreferenced for c. 15 years. I have tried numerous searches to verify this award exists, but have been unable to find any sources via google, news searches, and also TWL searches including via Ebsco and ProQuest. No evidence the subject meets WP:GNG. ResonantDis_tortion 08:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, and Senegal. ResonantDis_tortion 08:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattin

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, and the external links in the article don't help establish notability (as they're either Mattin's website or interviews). Interestingly, the article was created by User:Mattata, whose only mainspace edits involve creating this article. toweli (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Literature, Music, and Spain. toweli (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some coverage in The Wire, albeit paywalled. From the magazine's index, issue 267 (2006) looks to have the most coverage of the subject. More recently, there was a book review a year ago, in issue 476. AllyD (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Nebraska

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

This article, separated from Nebraska, gives the impression that the album was an actual record that was shelved and is sitting in the vault, which is not the case. Springsteen felt these recordings, which were the Nebraska songs in "electric" renditions with the E Street Band, did not capture the mood and feelings of his initial demos, which became Nebraska. I am currently rewriting the Nebraska article in my sandbox and there's only one paragraph on the "electric" version. Yes, there are quite a few sources that cover the "electric" recordings, but these renditions will be covered in the new expansion, and are already partially covered in Born in the U.S.A.. They do not warrant their own article, especially in its current state, which gives the impression that they were considered for release in 1982. (Springsteen, very briefly, considered combining the acoustic and electric stuff in a double album but decided to release the acoustic ones on their own to give them "greater stature".) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now—Zmbro, you really love your massive rewrites and wholesale publishing overrides of Bowie and Springsteen album articles, instead of choosing the collaborative method of making smaller or shorter edits, allowing stuff to breathe, and having other editors weigh in. This is the second AfD that I can recall where part of your rationale seems to be "I'm rewriting this" or "I intend to rewrite this"—you seem to often just skirt OWNERSHIP issues with these DB and BS articles. I read the Hyden book when it came out, and confess that I forget how many pages he spent discussing the electric sessions (and the Marsh and Heylin books were years ago). But at the risk of turning this into a general comment, you may want to reevaluate your editing mindset... Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly hurtful... but I'm certainly not the only editor on WP to rewrite articles soon their own before publishing. When I do rewrite, I try to keep as much of the old content as possible as long as it's useful. In the case of the Nebraska article in its current state, quite a bit of it has non-encyclopedic writing, on top of being sourced by entire books and not specific pages. In those instances I'm basically forced to start anew. Furthermore, it's best to write these articles wholesale so everything flows organically and there is a consistent writing style; obviously, WP is a collaborative place but quite a lot of articles actually read like they were written by 20 different people. I will admit, I did have ownership issues when I first started doing this, but I do think that has gotten better. To me, this is a much easier process than sitting around waiting for other editors to try to chime in, especially for artists like Elvis Costello, who has much less fans than Bowie or Springsteen, or even Duran Duran. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nebraska (album): coverage is minimal, scope is limited, target article already has a significant amount of information on this and plenty of room for more. Zmbro's draft/future edits to the page should be outside the scope of this AfD, and I have no opinion on them. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nebraska (album) - I have no idea why it's necessary to rewrite that entire album article, which has been honed over many years by dozens of competent editors. But for Electric Nebraska I agree with the previous voter. There are only fan rumors that this collection of songs may someday be released as a distinct album, and an album article in WP should be based on a distinct item for current or near-future purchase, or a fully prepared album that was totally cancelled. Here we have session recordings that didn't make it to the album, just like outtakes and leftovers that occur at any recording session. The saga can be covered adequately at the main album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not rewriting the ENTIRE thing; as I stated above, I try to keep as much content from the old versions as I can when I start these projects. In this album's case, however, much of the recording content and such were sourced using entire books rather than specific pages; when I don't own the sources in question, I basically have to restart from there. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at your sandbox version of the Nebraska article, I can say that you're certainly doing informative and well-cited work there. The problem is that the easiest way to move your content to the main article is lots of copy/pasting, in which case you would erase a lot of work by previous editors that merely needs to be improved rather than eradicated. If you're planning much more intricate updates and additions to the existing text, that would be a more community-oriented strategy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yab Moung Records

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a record label, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for record labels. As always, record labels are not automatically notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:CORP criteria -- but except for a couple of reliable source hits that briefly glance off the record label's existence while being principally about the overall music scene in Cambodia, which aren't substantive enough to pass NCORP but don't add up to enough to claim that it would earn any sort of "a high enough volume of shorter sources can still satisfy GNG" pass, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, such as YouTube videos and blogs and Bandcamp and its own self-published content about itself.
As it may have better sourcing in Khmer that I'm not linguistically equipped to find, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Khmer is able to find more coverage in that language than I've found in English, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Cambodia. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine Waters Willard

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

This article does fail WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Couldn’t find as much reliable coverage as possible. Only in online books that credit her and her sister Julia as background vocalists on an album. Discogs has all the credits, but still not best suited for the article. There are no record chart records of her either. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Waters Tillman

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

This article does fail WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Couldn’t find as much reliable coverage as possible. Only in online books that credit her and her sister Maxine as background vocalists on an album. Discogs has all the credits, but still not best suited for the article. There are no record chart records of her either. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Music. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Ray (singer)

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

An article about a musician. There's no independent coverage at all; exlinks are some very minor database entries and a defunct personal website. There's no evidence that this person comes anywhere close to meeting any of the parameters listed in WP:MUSICBIO. The article lists various "worked with" of somewhat notable musicians, but that doesn't confer notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Claims of some airplay and internet streaming airplay, even if they were sourced, would not confer notability.

Note that there are a number of other country artists called "Bobby Ray" or something similar.

See also Bobby Ray LIVE, a redir to this article (formerly a copy of this article, deleted and redirected by WP:PROD). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC) Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There isn't coverage of this person. Singing with other famous people isn't quite notable. Sourcing here is directory listings or social media/streaming sites. I don't find any mentions in Gnews. Oaktree b (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy's Records

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

Fails NCORP, notability concerns for over a decade, no references easily found on internet search Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was for some time the biggest independent record shop chain in the UK, a £30 million business with at one time 36 branches, and winning several industry awards. Coverage includes 'A love letter to Andy's Records where 90s kids in Cambridge spent far too much money', 'Andy's Records shops to close' and the British Newspaper Archive has several more articles about the company: 'Top Award for Andy's Records', Andy's Records Set to Break Into Brid', 'A Fourth Major Award For Andy's Records', 'Just for the Record, the Rest Is History: From Humble Market Stall to £30m Business, Andy's Is 30', 'Third retailing award for Andy's Records'. --Michig (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by @Michig, to which I would add that Graham Jones, Whatever Happened to Record Stores (2009) at 285 includes at least a paragraph on the founding of the article subject (but I'm not logged in to archive.org, and can't check if the text runs over onto other pages). Oblivy (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy to withdraw following Michig's findings. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the sources provided by Michig and believe the article should be kept. Since the nominator has also withdrawn, it’s clear the article will remain. Baqi:) (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Static/Crash

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

Can't find any reliable sources covering the album (Google search). The only coverage mentioning the album title is this short music blog post and it's not significant coverage, just a passing mention. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Mark Inside. I found two reviews from Exclaim! ([1], [2]), a review from The Coast (newspaper) ([3]), and a few sentences about the album in a NOW article about the lead singer and guitarist ([4]). But all of that coverage is too brief to be significant. toweli (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This overall doesn't meet notability. Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect. This, once again, is an old holdover from a time when Wikipedia extended an automatic presumption of notability to any album recorded by a notable band regardless of its sourcing or lack thereof, in the name of completionist directoryism — but that's long since been overturned, and an album now has to get over WP:GNG on its own steam. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Mosh Fest

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, United States of America, and Wisconsin. toweli (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I found was this one single page from a book dropping its name once without SIGCOV. [5] Other than that, nothing to be found. Doesn't meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Melts Cube

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

Unreleased track. No reliable sources provided, only citations from "Lost Media Wiki" which is an unreliable user generated site; and there's no concrete evidence of the song's existence. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I searched and couldn't find any evidence that this topic has been picked up by reliable sources. Left guide (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I also found nothing additional. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, agreed with @Left guide UzbukUdash (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say, DJ Speed (Eazy-E Afilliate) confirms as well as DJ Yella (Producer) Which proved existence. If people did research as much as I did, they would know, I also know… in interview, Eazy-E Refers to the diss. Lost Wiki page had the most info which is reliable despite being User Friendly. Also includes sources, just alike Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.20.155.153 (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@216.20.155.153:

Existence ≠ notability. Songs must meet WP:NSONG to merit a standalone article.
Wikis are not reliable sources because they are self-published and lack editorial review.
Interviews are primary sources and cannot establish notability.

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't buy the "DJ Yella confirmed the existence of this track" argument. If you listen to the interview (linked to in the Lost Media Wiki article), he just says that there's one instrumental that he has with no Eazy-E lyrics on it that might have been reserved for an Ice Cube diss track and he doesn't want to speculate much further. The whole article is based on speculation and is potentially misleading since it makes a number of unverified, and probably unverifiable, assertions. For instance, where is there any solid(ish) evidence that this supposed track is called "Heat Melts Cube"? The sourcing is horrendous : Lost Media Wiki is obviously unreliable. Pichpich (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real-time Cmix

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated 18 days ago, and there was no participation, so it was soft deleted. The soft deletion was challenged, the article was restored 11 hours ago, and it's still not well sourced. I'm guessing unilateral draftication, a redirect, or other alternatives to deletion may also be challenged, so I'm nominating this for an AfD discussion. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Software, Indiana, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wasn't able to find WP:SIGCOV. There's a lot of one-off mentions and the best source I found was written by the creators of the program making it a primary source. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's coverage at a conference peper (doi:10.1007/978-981-19-2266-4_34) but I'm not sure if its a primary or secondary source. Mach61 02:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61 Kind of hard to tell with a paywall, isn't it? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses You can access it for free at the Wikipedia Library, click this link and log in with your WP account if prompted. Mach61 02:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep upon skimming it has a lot of secondary information on RTcmix and is only a primary with regard to the WebRTcmix framework the authors developed.
Mach61 02:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61 It's almost like I'm reading another language. Glad someone understands that. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2024 (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 delete‎. asilvering (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Koppelman

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Theroadislong (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited in this article obviously fall very much short of establishing notability, and BEFORE finds only the usual social media etc. profiles plus a couple of interviews but nothing that would meet WP:GNG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This dates from the Wild West days of Wikipedia where next to no standards were applied in order to create a broad base of articles. Fails WP:BIO. WP:V. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kablammo (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:PRODUCER or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2024 (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. There is consensus that the subject winning the national contest is enough for WP:ANYBIO. The contest also appears to be notable since the AfD nomination will likely end up with a keep result. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aanchal Kumar

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this page does not meet notability standards WP:NBIO and WP:GNG or WP:SNG. In addition to that, the citations given are insufficient and do not possess the required quality and reliability. Although she may have won a beauty pageant, it is not a major national fashion or beauty event. Contrasting WP:INHERENT. Also, being married to a businessman who has a wikipedia page of his own does not automatically establish notability by association WP:INHERITED. The notability of her husband's page is also open to debate, but let's not get into that.

This nomination is part of my training and assessment activities at NPP School. Charlie (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Charlie (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Music, Television, Beauty pageants, Haryana, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~meets WP:ANYBIO with a significant award; if other users disagree, a redirect to Gladrags_Manhunt_and_Megamodel_Contest#Winners (where she is listed) should have been considered anyway.~~ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC) Given the notability of the awards is challenged (rightly so or not, not sure [same nom]) see below and AfD about the awards, keeping my keep but changing my argument: no more ANYBIO but a modest BASIC/GNG pass, in light of the sources presented by Jeraxmoira. (Not opposed to a redirect and merge to Anupam_Mittal#Personal_life, where she is mentioned (with a picture), as a lot of the existing coverage mentions her in regard to her marriage and private life).Thanks.Mushy Yank (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[fwiw, I don't think Anupam Mittal's notability is doubtful][reply]

Keep meets WP:ANYBIO with a significant award Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest and represented India in Miss Intercontinental (The winner of Gladrags Mega model represented India at Miss Intercontinental from 1997 to 2003) and ended up as a semi-finalist. She was also a contestant in Bigg Boss and got evicted after 6 weeks. You will get to see a lot of news about her. Added some old references.

Jitujadab90 (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't rely too heavily on Gladrags Manhunt as a significant award, especially since it itself depends on a single, unreliable source. A search through Google News reveals that the event lacks significance on its own and does not demonstrate notability. Secondly, being a participant on a reality show does not make someone notable. We need better sources that are in-depth, significant, and independent. Charlie (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we rely on a contest that is a national contest? Also, Gladrags sends winners as national representatives to Manhunt International, Miss Intercontinental from 1997 to 2003, Miss Tourism International. Aanchal represented India among the top five contestants in the Miss Intercontinental. I also agree that being a participant on a reality show does not make someone notable, but at the same time, it is very difficult to survive 6 weeks on a reality show like Bigg Boss, she must have done a significant job in the show. She also won the celebrity segment of quiz show Baazi Kiski hosted by B-town actor Ashutosh Rana on Zee TV. Jitujadab90 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, Gladrags is primarily a promotional contest and lacks reliable coverage. I have already provided a Google News search result link that clearly explains my concern. Also, being a participant in an international event is quite different from being a winner. If you are able to add substantial information to help the page meet the Heymann standard, please feel free to do so. Charlie (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What do you think of these sources? [6] [7] Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:CITEUNSEEN, the first link from Tribune India is credible, and the article is authored by a staff writer but the coverage appears in Saturday Plus, a supplement rather than the main newspaper. In the second link, Rediff, while also reputable as per CITEHIGHLIGHTER , focuses on being someone's girl friend, which led to its coverage, so I would prefer to skip it. Charlie (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that coverage from a supplement paper and a source discussing her as someone’s girlfriend does not count towards the GNG? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am implying coverage from a supplement paper should be given careful consideration as it may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability. But, the source discussing her as someone’s girlfriend shouldn't be counted. Charlie (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy that backs up your statement? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! To partially accept the first source, I will refer to WP:SPONSORED where it clearly states that "merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources". For not accepting the second source, I will take support of WP:INHERITED. Charlie (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have your answer in the statement you mentioned. Unless you can prove that the source published on November 13, 1999, is a sponsored one, it is completely acceptable for GNG. WP:INHERITED states, "Caution: This section is not a content guideline or policy". Deletion discussions are based on policies and guidelines, not essays.

And fwiw, your interpretation of WP:INHERITED is completely incorrect. Please read the subsequent paragraphs below the example arguments. WP:INHERITED is not applicable here, as no one is arguing that she is notable for being Yuvraj Singh’s rumored girlfriend. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While essays are not official policies or guidelines, many offer valuable insights and are worth considering. Policies and guidelines may not cover every possible situation, so numerous essays provide interpretations or commentary on community norms for particular topics and scenarios. We may hold differing views, and each perspective has merit. so let’s respectfully agree to disagree. Charlie (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are numerous reliable sources available, starting from her winning the Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest up to her recent marriage and childbirth, which can be used to write a well sourced article. WP:INHERITED discusses an instance of a subject assumed to be notable only because it is related to an existing notable subject, which does not apply here. We have coverage that goes back to 1999, from different events in her life. Even if we consider all the coverage from Bigg Boss as one, we still have substantial coverage starting from her pageant victory up to her entry into Bigg Boss, which easily meets GNG. The 2012 deletion discussion was argued on the basis of subject being notable for one event, which is also not applicable, as we have coverage beyond that. Apart from this, Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest has also survived two AfDs, which means the pageant victory should be considered as significant award or honor, thereby passing WP:ANYBIO. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am having difficulty finding relevant sources on Google search, or perhaps I might be overlooking some like I missed the 1999 Tribune Supplement. Would it be possible for you to provide a source analysis table to aid in? This would be incredibly valuable for me as well as for the assessor regarding my recently concluded NPP training, as my rights application is still pending. Charlie (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a source analysis here. I believe the main issue lies with your nomination, as you cited WP:INHERITED which is commonly used in AfD arguments, not nominations. A recent example of inherited notability could be Alakh Pandey. In this case, Aanchal Kumar is not solely notable for marrying Anupam Mittal, participating in Bigg Boss or winning the Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest rather her notability comes from all three factors, at this point. Redirecting Aanchal Kumar to either Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest or Anupam Mittal would result in a significant loss of content, so that's out of the discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Though I was hoping for a source analysis table, but thank you nonetheless! Charlie (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jeraxmoira,@Jitujadab90 and thank you, please note that the nominator has also nominated Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest for deletion (one day after this). Mushy Yank (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She did severals of notable work and have good sources. Camilear (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2024 (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 Red Elvises#Studio albums. charlotte ^👸♥ 19:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grooving to the Moscow Beat

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

I removed a notability tag because there is a rating from Allmusic. Another editor reverted that because it isn't a review in their view. So, lets settle this. Is this album notable or not? Tag has been on the article since 2012. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after a search for the required "multiple, non-trivial, published works", I could find only one borderline source in the LA Weekly, which I added to the article. Everything else I could find were either blog posts or other user-generated content, which also applies to Allmusic. While the band is notable, this particular album is not unless at least one more source can be provided and some sourced detail about reviewer reception can be added to the article. Certainly an Allmusic rating, which is user-generated, is not sufficient to establish notability and shouldn't have been used as an excuse to remove a valid maintenance template. Skyerise (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The blue star "AllMusic Rating" is official from the site's editors and is not user-generated. The red star "User Rating" is the user-generated one. However, there is consensus thar an AllMusic page with an official rating but no official review does not convey notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. That makes perfect sense. Skyerise (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Elvises, the band. -- asilvering (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red_Elvises#Studio_albums: as WP:ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2024 (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.

National selections for the Eurovision Song Contest

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

While the national selections for the Eurovision Song Contest of each individual country may be considered notable, e.g. Melodifestivalen in Sweden or Melodi Grand Prix in Norway, and while I do believe there is scope for including information on individual country's selections within their own articles (see San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest#Selection process for a good example of this), I do not believe that there is justification for hosting a list of every single national selection which may have been held. I believe that this article contravenes several of Wikipedia's guidelines, including WP:LISTCRIT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY (specifically point 2 on "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"), and in parts I believe this also falls down on WP:GNG as well as WP:OR (given the vast majority of information here is unsourced). I propose deleting the article and merging any useful, sourced parts into Eurovision Song Contest and individual country articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Lists, and Europe. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", and the set seems notable anyway; the informations are not ’loosely" associated. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. W/rt/ your statement that I do not believe that there is justification for hosting a list of every single national selection which may have been held. It is inarguable that the Eurovision selection process has been given substantial attention by RS, and that therefore that this list meets WP:NLIST. Addressing arguments point by point:
1. LISTCRIT: How is this list not specific enough for that to be a problem?
2. NOTDIR: Again, this list is very specific, so no issue with "loosely associated topics"
3. GNG: Relevant criterion is NLIST, which is met as per above (and arguably irrelevant anyhow per Mushy Yank)
4. OR: I fail to see how this list has any problems with that, rather than WP:verifiability, to which I point to WP:NOTCLEANUP
5. I propose deleting the article and merging any useful, sourced parts into Eurovision Song Contest and individual country articles. The high-level main Eurovision contest article would be far too unwieldy with all this information
. Mach61 00:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the table only. While selections are an important part of the Eurovision realm, this table/list format is not appropriate to convey that. The prose describing how entries are selected is all that is needed and in fact should be expanded as how entries were selected tends to be a point of discussion for the contest. I don't understand the point of the table. It is not user friendly, not accessible, and just serves as a dumping ground for unsourced information. Modern contests could have readily accessible refs, but the older ones are not as prevalent or accessible. That on its face is not the biggest issue, but rather every process is different depending on country, so grouping things by labels as just "national final" or "internal selection" is far too vague. Adding additional context would further create readability issues. Some select just a singer internally, some a song internally, some both the singer and the song internally; meanwhile some national finals have an open call for applicants, others have contestants that are internally selected, and yet still others have one singer they've selected singing singer multiple songs for consideration. If I want to see how a country selects their entry, I can navigate to their country's article (i.e. San Marino, Romania, etc.). There are far too many variables to present this information at this manufactured high level. Grk1011 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grk1011 Votes to the effect of "Keep under the condition that..." shouldn't be cast, since discussions about improving the article belong on the article talk page, not here. Mach61 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. If it's on the fence, I think the evidence presented leans more towards delete. There should be a place that discusses how entries are selected, but currently this article is not that in any meaningful way. The contest's website only discusses this with fewer than a dozen sentences, something which as of now could fully be part of the Eurovision Song Contest article without undue weight. Grk1011 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grk1011 I think you misunderstand the page. It is not a regular article about the selection process that happens to contain a large list, it is a list-class page of all the broadcasters each Eurovision participant uses for their national finals, that just so happens to have some explication of the process for context. I agree that the non-list conent could be merged into the main article easily enough, but the list is the entire point of the page. You ought to be voting "Delete" Mach61 19:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I !voted delete overall. The list is the worst part of this article for the reasons I listed above. This type of information is not properly conveyed in list form as it varies so much from country to country. Between the columns being misleading (there are more than just "national final" and "internal selection") and there being no way to compare country vs country via sort or quantity of any well-defined metric, I'm not sure what we're doing here. Grk1011 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day (BoyNextDoor song)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG... b-side song, didn't chart, no significant coverage in independent sources (all the news coverage references seem to be just regurgitated press releases from the group's agency saying the song exists).

Some of the article's content could maybe be salvaged and put into a newly-created article about the song's parent maxi-single (along with information on the other 3 songs, maybe?) but as it stands it doesn't fit the criteria. RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earth, Wind & Fire (song) § Japanese version per nom. Nothing came up for my search Mach61 17:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: here's are the reasons!

Recent Release and Reception: "Good Day" is the first original Japanese-language song by BoyNextDoor, released on July 10, 2024, as part of their maxi single "And," which also includes Japanese re-recordings of previous hits. This context showcases its importance in the group's discography and the expanding international reach of K-pop.
Cultural Impact: The song, characterized as a hip-hop track, deals with themes of self-empowerment and enjoying solitude after a breakup. This relatable subject matter can resonate with a wide audience, enhancing its cultural relevance.
Industry Recognition: BoyNextDoor has already gained significant recognition in the K-pop industry, including awards such as the Global Rising Artist at the 2023 Melon Music Awards. This success indicates a strong fanbase and establishes their credibility as a notable act.
Source Citations: Provide citations from reputable K-pop news sites like Allkpop, Kpopping, and Kpoppie that cover the song's release and significance. These sources validate the content and add weight to the article's claims about the song's impact and the group's activities. ( https://www.allkpop.com/video/2024/08/boynextdoor-reveal-special-mv-for-good-day-b-side-track ), (https://kpopping.com/musicalbum/2024-AND2/GOOD-DAY10), (https://kpoppie.com/boynextdoor-members-profiles/)
OTHER LINKS:
https://www.allkpop.com
https://kpopping.com/musicalbum/2024-AND2/GOOD-DAY10
https://kpoppie.com

WikiNicExplorer 7:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright so: none of these reasons assert how the song meets WP:NSONG notability criteria.
Point #2 doesn't describe any actual cultural impact, point #3 is discussing the notability of the band, not the song. Nobody is questioning the notability of the band, and point #4 is moot as none of those sources are reliable sources, and, in fact, most of them are specifically noted as unreliable sources at WP:KO/RS#UR.
Thanks RachelTensions (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why WP:Convenient Discussions is attributing the above keep vote to me, tried to fix it but anyway.. if anyone is confused it was made by WikiNicExplorer, not me. RachelTensions (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI it would appear that @WikiNicExplorer's above "keep" vote was generated by AI (asking ChatGPT to generate a response for why this article should not be deleted results in almost identical text). RachelTensions (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish tango music

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

I found some sources such as https://www.idildergisi.com/ozet.php?dili=2&ref=1619560991&did=241 but am not sure notable enough Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'Turkish Tango in its 100th Year' in Istanbul: Melodic fusion of mastery, movement https://istanbultarihi.ist/770-the-tango-in-istanbul, https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=966030 . Please, search for sources before nominating an article. LefterDalaka (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like said again, There are applicable references- we just need to incorporate them. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This topic has a full book about it: Tango and the Dancing Body in Istanbul (ISBN 978-1000469936).

Giant Records (independent)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor and still finding my feet, so please don’t be mean if anything I say here is not pertinent for an AfD discussion. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles I added the single reference to this article – I would say that the source is probably not the most solid, but I have done a bunch of searching for other sources, without turning up anything that is very reliable, like toweli. That said, my sense is that there probably are decent sources sufficient to establish the record label’s notability, but they will likely be in print format from 30+ years ago and therefore less easy to find. Particularly if, like me, editors are not familiar with the area. I am pinging a few users who contributed to both sides in previous deletion discussions according to the edit history: Chubbles Hoponpop69 Tikiwont Hello Control. The creating editor is no longer on Wikipedia. As alternatives to deletion, one might consider:

1. Merging the content into Homestead Records, maybe as a sister label or some such.
2. Creating a new article for the umbrella distributor Dutch East India Trading, and merging this article and that for Homestead Records into that.

-- SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If such an article on Dutch East India Trading were to be made I would recommend this article to be merged there. Said article has to exist first though. Since it doesn't, I don't recommend for this article to be redirected to Homestead Records either, since there's no mention of Giant Records there. Given the lack of coverage as well as the difficulty of finding anything about it due to the overlap in name with the Warner Bros. label, I recommend delete. Recon rabbit 17:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to hear if there are objections or support for the Merge suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music Proposed deletions

Real Magic TV (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)