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:

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

Music Nation

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are PR stuff and no coverage from independent reliable sources, fails NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 05:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article reads like an advertisement for the company ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject is a UAE-based collective management organization that has received significant coverage from industry sources like Billboard, satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. The article can be further revised for tone and neutrality. Cleanup or advert tagging would be more appropriate than deletion. Subject has no relationship to past deleted articles titles "Music Nation". Mrmctorso (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the article with templates pointing out the promotional content. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhwinder Panchhi

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

Clearly non notable. Doesn’t satisfy any notability criteria. Also i checked on google but found nothing. Afstromen (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Bands and musicians, Music, Asia, India, and Punjab. Afstromen (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Dhillon

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

He doesn’t have any reliable source to establish notability. Sources in the article are unreliable. Clearly non notable. Afstromen (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Bands and musicians, Music, Asia, India, and Punjab. Afstromen (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gora Chakk Wala

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

Non notable singer. Found nothing reliable and significant for his notability. Afstromen (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Music, India, and Punjab. Afstromen (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV. Doesn't meet WP:NENT or WP:NBIO — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumar Gadimova

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

This article does not yet appear to be notable for English Wikipedia Insufficient Sources, and the topic may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Lists of people, Music, and Popular culture. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumar Gadimova is a well-known figure in Azerbaijani pop music and is widely recognized by the public in the country. Her artistic career has been covered by numerous reliable and independent sources such as APA, AzərTAc, Musavat, and Report. She has been active in the music industry since the 1990s, performing solo concerts, with her songs broadcast on national television and radio, and has participated in several state-level events.

The article is based on verifiable and independent sources, and the subject clearly meets the notability criteria due to her impact on Azerbaijani culture and public recognition. For these reasons, I oppose the deletion of the article and recommend that it be kept.Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being selected as an 'Honored artist' by the Azerbaijan government should be enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. I found sources stating this, but all are in Azerbaijani and I'm not sure if they're reliable enough.[1] [2] — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://president.az/az/articles/view/22993 The official website of the President of the country has reported on this. Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WifiSkeleton

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

Topic seemingly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Currently, the independent coverage consists of: 1. a tabloid article, 2. an article that relies on the previous article, and 3. an article that cites the subject's fandom page as its source. I did my own search and was unable to find any significant coverage outside of tabloid articles concerning the subject's death. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 15:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 15:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His death is linked up to his discord server, including a stage talk in discord, unfortunately no one has a recording or a youtube video of this stage announcement , i could add images of his closest friends saying stuff, and due to lack of proof, the only things i have/we got is that he overdosed on drugs. MasonCityIowaUser (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC) — MasonCityIowaUser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Miami-Dade County Medical Examiners Case Number 2025-01306 is the examiner report for skel, users were told by gothangelz staff not to post it as it provided his full name, any image of the report posted gets deleted which suggests that it is actually him. 2skate (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC) — 2skate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This doesn’t matter anyway as it doesn’t establish subject notability. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Images of his closest friends saying stuff” are not viable sources. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he said he was going to kill himelf and hasnt been heard from since with people close to him saying hes dead seems pretty viable 185.111.172.171 (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Without legitimate sources it's hearsay. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 03:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 17:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Florida, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His music is good but he's definitely not notable enough. Cyb3rstarz (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely notable enough now, more monthly listeners than jaydes yet jaydes has his own article. He has a song with over 40 million plays that is currently trending on social media and is number 32 on the charts of most popular songs in the US. 2skate (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% notable enough, i do agree the sources in the article could be better but i do not think it should be deleted personally BigChungusOnVinyl (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2skate Popularity ≠ notability. Notability is coverage in reliable secondary sources, not how many “plays” something has.

Also, by “charts of most popular songs in the U.S.”, do you mean the most popular songs on Spotify in the U.S.? Wikipedia uses stuff like Billboard charts as sources, not single-platform charts. ApexParagon (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hes notable for killing himself boom done 2skate (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there’d be millions of articles on Wikipedia which simply state “Bob was a plumber. He later killed himself”.

Dying does not make someone notable, alas. Especially if there are no reliable secondary sources reporting the death. ApexParagon (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he had millions of subscribers on yt when he was cyrus and has like 2 million mponthly listners definitley notable enough 185.111.172.171 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, popularity does not equal notability. Lot of SPAs making the same argument in here for keeping the article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged the article for notability as there is no viable coverage of his music and only tabloid/news farming sites were reporting his death. Sourcing in the article is trash and he has no notable discography, chart activity nor label work. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Dyer (musician)

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

I could only see minor, routine coverage when I did a search. Although the subject has won a couple of awards, these aren't major. Looks like it might be a case of WP:TOO SOON.

There are also misleading statements designed to look like the subject has received more prominent coverage from sources (e.g. 'On 21 March 2023, it was announced that Dyer would collaborate with Nativity! The Musical director Debbie Isitt again on I Should Be So Lucky. . .' - and the cited source mentions him only very briefly). Finally, the username of the page creator suggests a close connection to the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Leonstojka (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vattan Sandhu

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

Doesn't pass WP:SINGER andWP:NACTOR. No coverage in reliable sources. Afstromen (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Asia, India, and Punjab. Afstromen (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non- notable article. It is not having any notable, reliable news citations either. Needs to be deleted.Almandavi (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Most references are dead/non-notable sites. Reads like a fan page, lol. Chronos.Zx (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only three citations are there in the article, my analysis:
- - 1. Non-notable site (DesiGallan), unable to excess even after multiple refreshes.
  - 2. Dead link (NewsXack).
  - 3. Content removed from Tribune India. Chronos.Zx (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narinder Batth

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

His work might seem notable, but the lack of coverage in reliable sources indicates that he is not notable Afstromen (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Music, Asia, India, and Punjab. Afstromen (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; did you look for punjabi language sources? AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I searched on Google in Punjabi, but the results did not satisfy the notability criteria.

Afstromen (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fika Recordings

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

Of the sources in the article, the only kinda in-depth coverage is in WeGotTickets (a ticketing company?) and DrownedInSound (web-zine). There's an interview w/ the founder in BBC Music blog, but I'm not convinced any of these are strong enough reliable sources for a notability argument. All the others are just mentions of Fika in the context of an album that has been released etc. WP:BEFORE in newspapers.com, google news/books, pressreader didn't turn up any additional coverage beyond mentions. Considered ATD but I don't see a clear merge or redirect target as the founder doesn't appear to be notable and the record label is associated with multiple musical groups. Zzz plant (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Kingdom. Zzz plant (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say this clears the hurdle of WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels, and the Drowned in Sound and BBC coverage are solid starts on sourcing. Chubbles (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it's always harder for music labels to qualify, as they may not have direct or significant coverage per policies, but in my opinion it should be kept due to coverage of their artists, hence considered a notable label. i,e Authors qualify if they have book reviews, hence labels qualify if they have artist reviews. Darkm777 (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blackened Recordings

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

Blackened Recordings is not an independent entity from Metallica themselves. The origins of the record label are exclusively contained within the history of the band and their desire to want to own their own work. And this is, in fact, the sole purpose of the record label [3] (any source that exists out there discussing Blackened Recordings will likely just be a rehash of this initial announcement). It was made by Metallica, it does not sign any other artist but Metallica, and it has not released anything but work made by Metallica. It is also not similar to something like Reprise Records or Republic Records, which are whole companies with their own standout history, because Blackened Recordings has no history. And therefore, no reason to have its own page (see WP:NOPAGE). I suggest a redirect back to Metallica. λ NegativeMP1 20:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. λ NegativeMP1 20:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1 I was merely adding an english translation to a page that has existed since April 2022. If you think it's unnecessary, I can also also add the German page and all translations to Articles for Deletion. Jacobspeeds2 (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Metallica discography, which has nothing about this label outside mentions in tables, leaving the reader lost as to what this label is (and also has spare mention in the main article). Nathannah • 📮 22:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Jacobspeeds2 (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with possible keep if additional sourcing demonstrates independent coverage. There is no reason why this should have been sent to AfD; we would never want a redlink here, and this should have been a merge proposal. I'm on the precipice of suggesting this be speedy closed and moved to a merge talkpage instead. Chubbles (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with the merge to Metallica discography as this will give a better context of the subject.Villkomoses (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but I raise instead merging to simply Metallica. Since not all of their albums in their discography existed in the labels lifespan. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There are not enough notable sources for it to stand out as its own article. That being said, I think it makes sense to have this serve as a redirect to the Metallica page for those looking for it and maybe this could have its own area on the page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper & Singing Simon

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

Contested PROD; only found trivial mentions on user-generated sites and social media, nothing nearly reliable or significant enough to satisfy WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Education, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any coverage to meet general noteworthy guidelines. Aside, the wikilinks from the segments seem very non-sequitur. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find, failing WP:NWEB, WP:NFILM, and WP:GNG. Original impact of the series seems to have been minimal, and though it has recently been rediscovered there seems to be no significant coverage - maybe there will be in the future, but there's nothing notable about it currently. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do see some growth for this article, as in the past, rediscovered lost media has exploded in popularity that it gave notability, maybe in the future, but that may just be me. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no RSes for this article, lacks notability for inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live Earth concert, Washington, D.C.

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

Cannot find any reliable secondary sources that cover this concert. (The 2 sources listed in the article are both primary) ApexParagon (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seemingly non-notable campaign event without WP:LASTING coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Singh Rajput

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

The subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Acting roles are minor—brief appearances in Toilet: Ek Prem Katha, Mirzapur, and Aashram and do not meet WP:NACTOR. The "world record" lacks notability, and relation to a politician is irrelevant. Most sources, like ANI press releases and Nai Dunia, are unreliable or do not mention the subject. The article also shows WP:COI issues and feels like WP:TOOSOON.

The article's credibility is further undermined by the page creator uploading an image with false copyright claims, which was deleted twice for violations despite being claimed as their own work. Zuck28 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Politicians, Music, India, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page meets the both criteria.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject's acting roles are minor and insignificant.

The claimed "world record" for a book is not a notable award, and being the son of a politician does not confer notability, as it is not inherited per Wikipedia standards.

The article relies heavily on unreliable or inadequate sources:

- Source #2 (ANI press release) is self-published.

- Source #3 (Nai Dunia) is non-reliable.

- Source #5 is a forum, not a credible source.

- Source #7 is non-reliable.

- Source #8 does not mention the subject.

- Source #9 is a duplicate.

- Source #10 and Source #11 do not mention the subject.

Most remaining sources fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which typically lack the depth required for significant coverage.

Zuck28 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, Significant sources are available.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
S-Aura, Please mention those sources with SIGCOV and are reliable, with no WP:FRUIT and WP:PRIMARY. I can't find any. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Benison,

The TOI [4], India TV [5] and The Tribune (India) [6] generally considered secondary sources because they analyze or report on events involving Akash Singh rather than being direct records from him or original documents. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 06:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
S-Aura, All of these are interviews and promotional stuff. Anything spoken in interviews are primary because the subject is the source. They aren't used here. TOI is not reliable for personal data and box office. (See WP:ICTFSOURCES). — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page meet the criteria under both WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. The article is supported by many significant coverage.
Delete As per nominator, subject does not meet WP:GNG. Filmibeat, Naidunia, IndiaForums, OneIndia, MPBreaking are not reliable. Almandavi (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to be more careful when editing Wikipedia. It’s unacceptable that you fail to recognize one of the top media portals like OneIndia. Your edits seem really suspicious to me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 08:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OneIndia is listed as unreliable here per WP:ICTFSOURCES Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! kindly review more listed sources, as there are many reliable available including TOI, NDTV, and The Print etc. Additionally, his father Govind Singh Rajput is also a Cabinet Minister. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S-Aura Being someone's son doesn't makes the personality notable for wikipedia. Almandavi (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Almandavi, The context was different. I hope you will understand as you start editing. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 08:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Miminity for clearing it. @S-Aura Better to research and fix rather than pointing other editors. Almandavi (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Almandavi, Thanks for your advice! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 08:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG, as multiple reliable sources have been found.Sync! (talk)
Delete: No SIGCOV whatsoever. Most of the references are totally unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES and passing mentions and minor roles aren't NACTOR or SIGCOV. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly review again! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 06:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
S-Aura, Stop bludgeoning discussions. — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Bitches

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

Following WP:NALBUM there aren't any sources showing that this meets the criteria for notability of a recording. It could be redirected to FBG Duck#Discography but I don't think it is even a popular enough search term to need a redirect. Moritoriko (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions, Music, and Illinois. Moritoriko (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FBG Duck's Wikipedia presence was exaggerated a bit by certain users, creating spinouts, templates and whatnot. It should be trimmed; no independent coverage has been demonstrated for this album so it should go. Geschichte (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FBG Duck as an alternative to deletion. ✗plicit 02:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trackloaded

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

Non-notable website. Fails NCORP or the GNG. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Trackloaded meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG) through significant coverage in independent, reliable sources:

- Mentioned in Pulse Nigeria, referencing its lyrics/media section
- Cited by Legit.ng in entertainment industry commentary
- Awarded "Best Entertainment News Media Platform" by MEA Markets in 2024
- Recognized as "Best Entertainment & Media Platform – West Africa" at Innovation in Business Awards 2024
- Reached 4.4 million listeners on Audiomack, indicating real-world cultural and public impact

The article is neutrally written and sourced to meet the notability criteria under both GNG and NCORP for media-related topics. It documents a notable Nigerian digital platform with verified third-party recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oloyede2003 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources in the article and the ones given by Oloyede2003 aren't reliable or only mention the subject. I haven't found any other RS. WP:NCORP isn't met. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Nigeria. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Trackloaded meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines through independent coverage, recognized industry awards, and multiple media citations. It was reviewed by an experienced editor (User:Skynxnex), confirming its neutrality and quality. The article documents a verifiable and notable digital platform. — Oloyede2003 (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful Dead Archive

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

The archive lacks significant independent coverage establishing notability beyond its existence as a university collection. Most sources are affiliated with UCSC. Mooonswimmer 16:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found some mentions in sources (not already cited in the article) such as the book Ink on the Tracks: Rock and Roll Writing, the 2015 article The Grateful Dead Archive in Music Reference Services Quarterly, or the book Reading the Grateful Dead: A critical survey. I suggest demoting the article to a stub, incorporate these sources, and update it with newer information. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been able to find multiple sources with SIGCOV, though I agree the article needs an update. There is in depth coverage of the archive's provenance in local news: [7]. Also coverage of the archive museum in SFGate: [8]. The Atlantic article on the potential value of the archive to scholars studying Grateful Dead culture: [9]. More from NPR about the potential value of the archive: [10].

I have to imagine there is at least one Deadhead editor on Wikipedia that would be willing to update this article. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Song

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM. Sources in the article are promo, primary. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:RPRGM (itself an essay and not a formal SNG) has not mentioned TV programmes since 2021, but if I understand correctly, it used to say that programmes broadcast on national networks are likely to be notable. This one has been nationally broadcast for five years, so not sure how the nom's "fails WP:RPRGM" statement should be interpreted. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an inherent difficulty in evaluating coverage of popular media in Thai entertainment reporting in terms of independence, as such coverage has traditionally made little distinction between original reporting and supplied material. Thairath, for example, has lots of episode recaps in its website tag for the programme[11], and though most of them read promotionally, there's also a critical news item[12] and even some discussion by the print edition's political columnist[13]. There was a flurry of news coverage when the programme's host was implicated in The iCon Group case leading to his termination[14][15][16], but even some of these appeared to be PR-based[17][18][19][20]. The most in-depth piece of coverage is this piece by web magazine The Cloud[21]. It's interview-based, but includes an introductory section of twelve sentence-length paragraphs in the writer's own voice that indicate source independence. Maybe consider rescoping to cover the franchise instead, since there's more English-language coverage about it[22][23], but then again most of it is from trade publications. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to !vote weak keep. The The Cloud piece is substantial enough to base an article on, and the other news mentions taken together help back that up. The Nataraja win is also an indicator of its significance. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recipient of national major awards: Nataraja Awards (รางวัลนาฏราช, a top-tier award in Thailand) [24], TV Gold Awards (รางวัลโทรทัศน์ทองคำ, should be the most prestigious TV awards in Thailand) [25]. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of the sources and awards provided here would be helpful in forming a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Elli (talk | contribs) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Laugs

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

This article fails notabillity guidelines for musicians, and also violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It does not cite any sources and is very short. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support agree with reasoning Czarking0 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it hard to believe he's not notable... Indexed in SIX national libraries, the VIAF. Gnewspapers brings up many hits, Gbooks has hits on his name from the 1930s to the present. The VIAF link has two biographical links in German. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Album review here [26] Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the German wikipedia article has some book references that look reliable here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is very likely that he is notable, but it is not going to be easy to find reviews of his concert performances or recordings (although Oaktree b has already found one on jstor). Some do come up on a Google Books search, eg Fanfare (14/1-2:263) and The Gramophone (52/613-618:536), but they have only snippet views, so can't be used as sources. Finding hard copies from that era would probably need access to a very large library. Apart from reviews, Discogs shows multiple albums released by the Musical Heritage Society and by a German label called Da Camera Magna. I realise that Discogs is not reliable, but it gives album names and label numbers which can be searched for elsewhere - and does suggest that he meets WP:MUSICBIO#5. I have added some sources to the article, and removed the unsourced tag. I'll see what else I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more than "comments" here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reviewing comments and additional links presented here suggests that nom. criteria for deletion is not met. Can be tagged for additional sources and enhanced by translating from the German article. Komodo (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sono Mirai wa Ima

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

This article fails notability guidelines for music; it's a song by a not super well known artist, and this song hasn't won any awards, received coverage, etc. This article doesn't have any citations and is very short. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Japan. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Good Dreams per nom. No hits on Japanese google that is worth mentioning. JP article is also unref. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claims in the nomination seem to indicate that a WP:BEFORE was not performed in Japanese or that the nominator is not familiar with Japanese music. I don't have any problem with the suggested redirection unless sources are found, but this song did chart nationally in Japan indicating possible notability under WP:NSINGLE, and the group has at least 7 top-10 albums which belies the claim that the artists are obscure. I would suggest trying to find sources in Japanese before nominating similar articles in the future. Dekimasuよ! 22:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello -- thanks for pointing that out; I'm not knowledgeable in this area and in the future I will search for sources in the original language. My statement that the group wasn't notable was incorrect, I agree with the redirect idea. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, is there more support for Redirection? Or other options?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 1 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!} 22:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Conservatory of Music

AfDs for this article:

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

COI or UPE editing of institute with not enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG. C4 was declined, but still fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Education, Schools, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of colleges in British Columbia#Applied institutes as an ATD. Yes, it is named wrong. It likely should be "List of learning institutions in British Columbia". That is a discussion for that article though. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show proof of COI or UPE editing? Nkj01 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this. Is there a reason you posted under my comments about COI or UPE editing when I didn't mention this? -- Otr500 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI claim lacks evidence. Cited references seem to be from institutes that are separate entities and not from the institute itself. It also has some recognition from a government source as well as other separate sources. 2604:3D08:948B:CD00:90C7:DA08:33D9:C950 (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply can you provide the best 3 sources which significantly meet WP:GNG. Thanks. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think people might take assertions like COI claim lacks evidence more seriously if they didn't come from a local IP who had already set off the edit filter trying to remove the AfD notice from the article. Just saying. -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but should that make a difference anyways if the COI claim lacks evidence Dwas92 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as we have no significant notability and significant independent coverage, merge as per the above suggestion of Otr500. WP:ATD. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of colleges in British Columbia#Applied institutes. Nothing found on EBSCO and google. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 13:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This merge suggests that it is a public applied institute, nothings shows that it is. A government website shows the institution being able to grant external credentials, which fall outside of courses developed by the local government. Dwas92 (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, silviaASH (inquire within) 13:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of university and college schools of music#British_Columbia - which, to be clear, is not the target proposed above. I presume the relist was to nail down whether this is a merge or a redirect, as the consensus not to keep is clear (for good reason, per the above, and because this would need to meet WP:NORG as the relevant SNG for a private education institution, and we have no independent sources with WP:ORGDEPTH). The above proposals, however, are to redirect to a list that does not mention this college, and whose inclusion criterion is that it only lists public colleges. We should not redirect there. However there is already an incoming link from the schools of music page, so that is a suitable redirect target. It is not a merge as there is nothing useful to merge, and a merge to a list page would place information that is undue on that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FyaVerse

...Sings Modern Talking: Let's Talk About Love

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

No evidence of this album passing WP:NALBUM, charting, or receiving critical responses. A copy of this mainspace version is at the draftspace, so this looks more like a copy-and-paste move. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Germany. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~draftify~~ for now. Given that the previous release did chart at number 5 in Germany, this one might as well chart, but we don't know. Alternatively these 6 past and future releases could just have one article under the title "Magic". Bedivere (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it's reached number 5 in the German charts I think it's fine to keep Bedivere (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere Citation, please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.offiziellecharts.de/charts/album Bedivere (talk) 16:11, 9 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 10:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect with history to Thomas Anders, but do not delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677 It now passes WP:NALBUM as it charted at #5 in the German charts. Bedivere (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music Proposed deletions

Zoo (Norwegian band) (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2025)
Funk automotivo (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2025)

Conheça Walt Disney World

Music

Music Proposed deletions