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

Lana Del Rey UK and Ireland Tour 2025

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

Not yet organised event, only one reference is all. also references are about past tours. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Travel and tourism. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is 1 reference about a past performance, her Reading & Leeds festival performance which I felt was appropriate to add due to it taking place in the same place as the current tour. It is an organised event, tickets went on sale today, and is available to view on Del Rey’s website here:https://www.lanadelrey.com/live/ and furthermore here are multiple other references: https://pitchfork.com/news/lana-del-rey-to-play-stadium-concerts-in-united-kingdom-and-ireland/ https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/11/27/lana-del-rey-ticket-prices-uk-ireland-tour/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly27y1v3p7o.amp. I can also add these references to the page itsself. Olivergrandeee (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lana Del Rey live performances per Guliolopez. It is too soon for an article like this, and despite the sources, it fails WP:NTOUR. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be okay for me to revert it to a draft and once it’s generated more publicity / if it generates more publicity to re-publish it? This is my first time making an article so this is all really confusing to me sorry Olivergrandeee (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lana Del Rey live performances. Or, failing that, draftify. (Per nom, is WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article on this planned/proposed/future event. Certainly the refs do not support an independent article). Guliolopez (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as AtD - indeed WP:TOOSOON, but very likely to be sufficiently well established in the near future. Shazback (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Nice Decade: The 70s Pop Culture Box

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

I am nominating the article for this box set and its two follow-ups for deletion due to lack of any substantial coverage. The article for the 70s box was restored the other day by an IP editor with the reasoning that because the other two have articles, this should also have one. However, the only source present on the first two articles is an AllMusic review, and the only source on the 90s box set is a mention in a Pitchfork article (which is not primarily about the box set in question). All fail WP:NALBUMS as far as I can tell. The parent article that the 70s box set redirected to prior to today, Have a Nice Day (album series), was redirected to Rhino Entertainment, but that article has no mention of the Have a Nice Day or Decade box sets anymore (and inserting a mention/a focus on this series there would stick out like a sore thumb), so that's why I'm seeking deletion not a redirect. The two additional articles:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral from the article’s creator.

Were I still in my 40s rather than my 60s, I would object to this article’s deletion, given that I created and worked on it nearly two decades ago, when I went by fantailfan. However, I am no longer an active editor on Wikipedia, and have not been one for well over a decade.

Since the title was reissued at least once despite its unwieldy packaging, I consider it to be eligible for notability. Not least for the historical audio clips interspersed throughout, however annoying they are on repeated listenings. Its follow-ups are less notable: Rhino’s thinking seems to have been that if one clunky multiple disc decade-spanning non-big name popular music survey sells, the only thing to do is to create more clunky multiple disc decade-spanning non-big name popular music surveys.

All the above constitute no argument for keeping the article as it is, but only for its notability. Given a thorough editorial overhaul, I think the article could meet the standards required to keep it available. In late 2024, it is a curio, but still notable.

However again, I am not the one to do it. My music tastes have changed, to classical. I currently contribute my uncompensated list-making energies to Discogs, mainly to transcribe the contents of large classical music box sets. I no longer have the time or inclination to edit this article into shape.

Rwlesses (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (weak) Initially I was pretty confident this would be a straightforward delete by nature of it being a compilation (typically non-notable) and having such limited sourcing (only the Allmusic review). But WP:BEFORE turned up a number of sources that, in my opinion, make it a keep: a longer review in The Vindicator (I don't know if this is a RS) by Ben Werner, who as credited as a writer for the Orange County Register; a review by 'The Associated Press' published in the Boca Raton News which was also printed in at least one other newspaper (the Telegraph-Herald) in a shortened form - unsure about the RS on this; it was nominated for a Grammy as reported in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, and shorter reviews in the Washington Post, the SF Gate, and the NY Times; also, although no sales figures are noted, it's amusing to see that it was identified by name in a NY Times articles on online record sales. Taken together, I feel that for a compilation album this is probably as notable as it gets. Shazback (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other two...

80s: a long-form review on CNN, that it was apparently also nominated for a Grammy per Variety, a very short blurb review in a LA Times supplement, a shorter review in the Telegraph-Herald, and a short AP review published in the Lodi News-Sentinel, and a different short AP review published in the Mount Airy News.

90s: a long review in Entertainment Weekly, a short review in the Deseret News, a longer, in-depth review in the St. Petersburg Times, one in the Free Lance-Star (which appears to have been published in other sources as well, an AP review in the Eugene Register-Guard.

I'm a bit less sure about these, but I feel they also (barely) pass the GNG criteria... Shazback (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Ahuja

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

Fails WP:NM or WP:COMPOSER, I searched about the subject but didn't find much substantial information (WP:BEFORE). The Hindustan Times article stands out as slightly better and provides relevant insights about the subject. Baqi:) (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, India, and Delhi. Baqi:) (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:COMPOSER

Zuck28 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Camino Media

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

There isn't any significant coverage for this label. There are trivial mentions but nothing more. Frost 11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earmilk

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

All 9 sources cited in the creation of this page lack credibility and fail to establish notability, as they barely address the topic in any meaningful way. Upon closer inspection, there is little to no reliable information available online. Additionally, the publication in question appears to be self-proclaimed and lacks established recognition. The article was created without prior discussion, and if such a discussion had occurred, it is unlikely the article would have been approved or passed moderation standards. This seems to reflect a pattern of using Wikipedia as a platform to lend credibility to fake or paid news. Moondust534 (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Music. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking further into this, so no comment on the notability, something lacking popularity does not make it "fake news" and almost all articles on Wikipedia are created without discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I agree an initial search is showing that it's probably not notable, I don't see the malice of things being "fake" or overtly promotional mentioned by the nominator. This looks like a run-of-the-mill article creation by an inexperienced editor who didn't understand our notability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw multiple fake news, so I reported it, with article prices on upwork. A blog cannot be labeled a reliable magazine tho. The platform has mixed reviews, with some raising concerns about its reliability and payout practices. Moondust534 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really following, but your nomination should be focusing more on how it fails notability criteria like the WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, not all this "fake news" stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That was a side comment I made. My main point is that it fails notability, coverage about it does not exist. - WP:GNG WP:WEBCRIT. Moondust534 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Up Above Records

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

nn music records label --Altenmann >talk 15:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Recordings

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The blabbermouth piece is churnalism annoucing so and so has signed up with this company. The level of coverage on this company fails to satisfy NCORP. The article was created by a single purpose one time editor and edit history on the article suggests plenty of public relations editing activity Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Norway. Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning delete, barring any coverage by Norwegian media that I might have missed. It's close to notability, as I found this magazine profile. The other two references - this and this I'm not sure count as significant coverage. So, for now at least, delete--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Tagged for a year. --Altenmann >talk 16:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find a few sources, but it appears the label no longer exists as an independent entity anyway... [1]. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Music Group

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

Fails NCORP. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing more substantial than the references already used, most of which are a) listings or b) no longer accessible. (The exception is XXL, which is a Q&A with Nyzzy Nyce, who founded Hurricane Music Group. The Nyzzy Nyce article was (soft) deleted in 2022.) JSFarman (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, California, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was completely sideswiped by source1 - the Indiana Secretary of State? Why? What? How? I still don't get the connection. The usual discogs/social stuff out there, nothing to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG even before we get to NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Duck Down Music Inc. per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love WP:ATD in theory but I can't find any evidence of their affiliation beyond a few songs credoted to Hurricane Music Group/Duck Down. I couldn't find Hurricane Music Group on the Duck Down website, and Discogs (which I know is not a great source) only lists two releases and both are by the same artist. There is no entry on Allmusic. JSFarman (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valid - this artist was under a distro deal with duck down / 3d and made national headlines for blogs and has millions of view due to the joint venture for indiana that’s a staple !! do not remove this !! Guiltytalent (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC) Adding comment from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Music Group. (JSFarman (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Two contributions to Wikipedia, the first reverted and the second being the above. Hmm. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nosral Recordings

AfDs for this article:

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

All but one of the sources used for this article have a close affiliation with the subject. The HM story states that a former writer for that publication launched the label, and most of the other coverage is trivial and written by someone closely affiliated with the subject (because they worked for Rottweiler Records). The editor who created it was banned for undisclosed paid editing. A single unaffiliated source (Jesus Wired) is reliable but the coverage of the label itself is trivial.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Christianity, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Band Aid (band)

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

WP:NOPAGE. Band Aid is the collective name of the numerous permutations of celebrity musicians who have recorded and released different versions of the charity song Do They Know It's Christmas. Band Aid has never released any other song, just this one. Most (all?) of the information on this page is duplicated on the Do They Know It's Christmas article. All we're achieving by having two pages is to have the same thing explained twice in different ways. This article should be redirected to that page. Popcornfud (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination appears to be based on worries about repetitive text rather than any evidence that Band Aid fails to qualify for notability requirements. The group is overwhelmingly notable. The solution to the repetitive text problem is to prune the song article so it is about the song specifically. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the nom, it's a WP:NOPAGE issue, not notability. We can cover everything we need on a single page. Popcornfud (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvincing. That same guideline encourages separate articles if the first one gets too unwieldy. That's the problem with the song article, so it can be trimmed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem with that strategy. Every single iteration of Band Aid (the band) is directly tied to each iteration of Do They Know It's Christmas. There's nothing to explain about the band that isn't also directly relevant to the song — they're essentially the same entities.

For example, the background detail — the reason why the band was put together — is also the reason the song was written and recorded. There would be barely any detail that would be uniquely relevant to one article and not the other. Popcornfud (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a good faith gesture, I acknowledge your stance but will simply disagree and will leave my vote and reasoning as they are. We'll see where the discussion goes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. I get that the two have an entwined history but it is a valid content overlap. There can always be a trimming down of material through the normal editing process in both articles. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge We have two article with very similar content. That is not good Wikipedia practice. I thus support merging this and the "Do They Know It's Christmas" article. The latter is the better article and makes more sense as the main target. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should really have nominated this for merge, not deletion. Bleh. Popcornfud (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it is determined the current version of this page is inappropriate, a set index article linking to Do They Know It's Christmas? (for the first band), Do They Know It's Christmas? § Band Aid II (for the second), Band Aid 20 and Band Aid 30 should be at this title, rather than a hard redirect to any one of these targets. Mach61 15:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beck (EP)

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

EP has zero coverage found in a WP:BEFORE. As for the citations present, 2 are database sites (no notability inherited from them), and the third is basically a press release announcing the release. Other language pages do not have any citations other than databases either.

I had previously redirected the page, but it was reverted. Reason give for the reversal was "This is a release by a major artist and therefore notable. Changing it to a redirect broke a bunch of links includlng the Beck chronology." We know that notability isn't inherited, so it doesn't matter how famous Beck is, if this release cannot stand on its own then it does not need to exist and can be mentioned in the Beck article. As for the reason that redirecting it "broke links", that is not a reason for keeping an article. Links can be fixed. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:49, 22 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. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beck discography per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. See my additions today including brief but significant coverage in Radio & Records, New Straits Times, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the Wisconsin State Journal and Under the Radar. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly fine with it being redirected to Beck discography, but it was redirected to Beck (musician) which was very confusing and felt like an error. And yes, broken links can be fixed, but it's not nice to just casually break obvious ones.

Ixat totep (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it might not be obvious to all, I'm the one who un-redirected it, so if that makes this a disputed deletion, I'm happy to un-dispute it as long as it goes to Beck discography and not Beck (musician). [EDIT: But now someone added much better and more notable citations so I think it should be kept]

Ixat totep (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just fixed the redirect to go to the discography and not the musician, just saying. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 I honestly thought there would be a lot more about it to cite. It's mentioned in a bunch of places like it's an important release (or at least as important as other EPs that aren't in danger of deletion). I was surprised I couldn't find more - that's why I left the "notability guidelines" flag up. If we're going to do "you could have..."... Albums are always in chronology carousels, and it's obvious that redirecting one will completely mess up the carousel and make them impossible to use to navigate the discography properly. That's the other reason I un-deleted it. I was clicking through releases and found myself back on the artist page trying to figure out wtf happened and it ticked me off enough to not fully research the page. I wanted the chronology to work and found zero talk page discussion about deletion so it seemed strange. Ixat totep (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 I just went to look at the page to see what to move elsewhere and volunteer to sort it out, but it looks like someone came along and added a bunch of much better citations, including print sources. So now I'd say keep it. Ixat totep (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:52, 30 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Sales

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a session musician, and not found references to add. I do not think the existing references demonstrate that he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. There is no obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Tennessee. Tacyarg (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and my own search. Joins most all session musicians, including a few on Thriller in not being notable Mach61 02:48, 30 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.

List of Music & the Spoken Word broadcasts

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

Unreferenced list of unclear utility. This is an episode list of a radio and television music performance show in which the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (always the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, never anybody else) performs religious music along with an inspirational/religious sermon -- but this list just goes "broadcast number, date, recording location, title of sermon, production code, the end", with many entries not even containing all of those details, and right across the board even the recording location is always one or the other of two facilities in Salt Lake City, and never anywhere else.
There's no information at all that would actually be useful, such as the titles of any specific songs that were performed in the episode or a detailed summary of the sermon's theme — so there's effectively nothing of any serious substance said about any of the episodes to differentiate one from another. All of which renders it into a list of meaningless and trivial information, and it's also completely unreferenced for the purposes of actually verifying even what little information is here.
There's just no value to this without a lot more information about each episode and actual referencing for it. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Lists, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan White (DJ)

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

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio DJ and a spinoff article about his purported "television show" that may or may not ever have actually existed, with neither article properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media personalities or their shows.
As always, broadcasters are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage and analysis about them to establish that they've been externally validated as significant by somebody other than their own public relations agent -- but the BLP is "referenced" to one deadlinked unreliable source, one discogs.com directory entry about somebody else who isn't Alan White and one glancing namecheck of Alan White's existence in a newspaper obituary of somebody else who also isn't Alan White, absolutely none of which constitutes support for the notability of Alan White.
And meanwhile, the "television show" article is actually serving primarily as a coatrack for a largely reduplicated summary of the BLP, and not actually saying even one word at all about a "television show" until the very end, when it finally reveals that the "television show" that's posing as the article's nominal subject is "currently in pre-production" -- except it's said that since the day the article was created in 2011, and the article has never been updated since then with any evidence that the show ever actually started airing. And it's also based entirely on unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no GNG-worthy coverage about either Alan White or the "show" present there either.
Nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm getting a headache on this one trying to locate sources. Too many people named "Alan White", and several active in music.4meter4 (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Connecticut, Georgia (U.S. state), Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The extreme lack of sourcing isn't helping... I tried looking for book reviews, no luck... For someone who seems to be so well-known, I'd expect some coverage in the Atlanta newspapers, which it doesn't seem to have either. Delete unless we can get some sort of sourcing in place that proves this is a notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking, Oaktree b, is that your opinion for both articles nominated here in this AFD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I've only reviewed the one about the person, not the TV show, I can look at it in a bit. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indra Rajya Laxmi Pragya Puraskar

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Appears to be some type of award but there are no sources which really cover it much less GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Dance, and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for historic reasons. There are plenty of notable people from Nepal who were recognized after getting this award. It has been stopped because of royal name attached to it after Nepal entered into the republic era. Plenty of sources are available if you search in native language (i.e. Nepali - इन्द्रराज्यलक्ष्मी प्रज्ञा–पुरस्कार) nirmal (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable national award established by a Head of state. We generally keep awards with national significance.4meter4 (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdy Prudes Must Die

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

A search for sources shows no sources from reliable sources; all sources are from blogs or college newspapers, neither of which are reliable. All development information is primary and thus does not indicate notability of the subject. The only third party source that shows notability is the Billboard sales performance, but this is a single source and only covering sales figures. This subject lacks SIGCOV and doesn't meet the GNG, and is better off redirected or merged as an AtD to Starkid Productions, the parent company which produced this musical. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While this is not about the cast album but the show itself (whose cast recorded the show), the cast album did make the Billboard national chart making it pass criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. I also found this additional review [2] Ultimately, the spirit of the WP:NALBUM SNG should apply here. This show charted so we should keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 The review hails from a student-published newspaper, so that one is also unreliable. From a glance at their about page, they don't seem to have a high journalistic standard (Anyone can apply and write for them) so I'm not sure if it's usable at all.

Still, my concern is that the album itself is what's notable here, not the show it's attached to. The show received no coverage, with only the album doing so. Notability for the show is not Wikipedia:INHERITED from the album either: "notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent."

If we were to consider the album separate from the show, and make an article solely about the album, that still wouldn't fly: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Given all that exists for coverage on the album is the Billboard source, there isn't really enough to build a reasonably detailed article beyond a track listing and a line saying that the album ranked #1. No matter what outcome is taken, this subject doesn't have the sourcing to meet independent notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. WP:NALBUM is clear that we keep all albums that place on a national chart regardless of the sourcing. That is the WP:SNG guideline. Period. University newspapers are often used on wikipedia, and are generally considered reliable. They are structured just like newspapers not attached to universities (editorial staff; both student and faculty), have the same legal recognitions under the law as professional journalists, and in this case, are over seen by a nationally recognized school of journalism. There's no reason to question the reliability of the newspaper at Boston University; particularly when its a review of theatre work. Regardless, repurposing this about the album is possible, but maybe not what best serves the encyclopedia. The content would be nearly identical and I don't see the value in differentiating between the two here as cast albums are simply audio recordings of a staged musical. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 I'm a bit confused since I was primarily citing music notability policies with my above argument, barring the usage of INHERITED. "...a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" hails from Wikipedia:NRECORDING, and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" is from NALBUM.

While NRECORDING states that albums charting is an indicator of notability, there's nothing in these notability guidelines that state it's an instant keep. Even ignoring that, my previous argument about an album split-out still stands. There's not enough coverage of the album to be non-stubby and not just a track listing, and the musical itself doesn't inherit notability from the album that charted per INHERITED, as, inherently, the album is a separate subject from the original musical.

It's something akin to (and forgive the oddly specific example, this is the first thing I have off the top of my head) Detective Pikachu (film) and Detective Pikachu (soundtrack), where the soundtrack has individual coverage of its own development, reception, etc; it logically wouldn't include content from the film Detective Pikachu (Such as the film's plot and development) since these two subjects have inherently different coverage and subject matter, and those items from the parent subject would not be relevant to the spin-out and vice versa.

This is entirely an aside here, but is there a specific policy for college newspapers? Last I checked they were generally unreliable since they're typically student-run and edited (Meaning literally anyone can write for them and no one with proper journalistic experience if fact checking.) Perhaps it's different if the editors are entirely faculty with journalistic experience in the field, but given we can't tell what's been edited by a student or faculty member unless they outright say it for some reason, I'm not sure how reliable that would be in the long term. This isn't really me arguing against it and more just me stating my gripes; if this is clarified somewhere else please let me know because I genuinely am not familiar with that policy if it exists. I'm mostly just basing this off how we usually determine reliable sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most university newspapers have an overseeing faculty advisor/editor who works as a part of the editorial team of the paper. That faculty member is always part of the journalism faculty if a school has a journalism school. Sometimes there is more than one faculty advisor, and generally the paper doesn't get published without their approval of each issue. I think you'll find though that universities with respected papers like The Harvard Crimson, The Tufts Daily, The Cornell Daily Sun, etc. are routinely cited across the encyclopedia by just checking the "what links here" section of those articles. You'll see there are tons of articles that wikilink to those pages because they are used as sources on a routine basis. It would be a tough sell to the reliable sources noticeboard to consider a university paper not reliable when it follows the same protocols editorially as a professional newspaper.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 as a general question: How can it be guaranteed that they receive editorial oversight from a faculty member? I know some papers often have their digital content overseen by dedicated student editors rather than faculty outright. This is obviously on a case-by-case basis, but in cases like these, how would it be determined if site content is usable? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pursue that further, I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what they have to say. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep I must agree with 4m4 that the high Billboard ranking gives me pause. Doing my usual source check... Oh hey! Hayley Louise Charlesworth (February 9, 2022). "Nightmare Time and a Case Study for Digital Theatre During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network (Abstract). 15 (1). Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved November 18, 2024.

@Darkfrog24: Do you have another link? That one isn't working, and it would be easier for others if it could be accessed here rather than through Google. I did look this up separately to check, but all that's in this journal are brief mentions that this musical got delayed due to COVID. The paper is primarily focusing on Nightmare Time, an unrelated production by StarKid, so I wouldn't really consider this source SIGCOV given Nerdy Prudes' mention here is primarily a TRIVIALMENTION in the context of Nightmare Time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. I have fixed the link in the article. Here is a link to the article itself: [3]. Here is a link to the Google Scholar search: [4]. As always, I'll defer to people who have read the full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24 I did read the text, and I've mentioned my findings above. Do you have thoughts on this? I'm not sure trivial mentions in a paper about another series entirely really counts as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines + TV Screens Tour

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

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL tour that fails WP:NTOUR. G11 and BLAR has been tried before. Notability-tagged for 11 years. Geschichte (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Ireland, Portugal, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, doesn't meet WP:GNG for an article in its own right and only has a passing mention on the Union J article, so don't think a redirect is necessary. Orange sticker (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Here are some reviews of the tour: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] See also: [12], [13]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For source eval of the sources mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or restore redirect to Union J. This had previously been merged. There are a couple of reviews in those sources, but the first source isn't bylined (and not a RS from the look of it); the Irish Independent is RS, SIGCOV; Oxford Mail local media not bylined; Mancunian Matters is hyper-local but has editorial oversight and is bylined; HitTheFloor is debatable, but a review nonetheless and there's an editor in place; Liverpool Echo is a WP:ROUTINE gig announcement from their sports editor (!); The Scotsman is a bylined review in an RS; the last two sources are an album review and a tour announcement in the Birmingham Mail. All in all, this is mostly routine, does have a couple decent gig reviews in RS but in the whole is not the stuff that amounts to making the TOUR notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rapsody Overture

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As mentioned in the previous AfD, the album appeared on various European charts and search results at Google Books indicate some notability. They could be called passing mentions: [14], [15], [16], [17]. But there are "snippet views" from DRUM magazine, The Big Issue, Paris Match, Tjednik (Croatian magazine) that are not fully viewable, and could be significant coverage. I think this is very likely a notable subject and sources are just locked in physical media. If the article is decided to be deleted, as an alternative to deletion a redirect to Prince Igor (song) would be appropriate. --Mika1h (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of passing WP:NALBUM. Sources presented aren't convincing. I can't find the substantial coverage required. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. --Altenmann >talk 16:04, 25 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep, I would be inclined to delete normally, due to the probable conflict of interest noted by the nominator, the sources shown by AllyD appear to display notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep (thanks to sources found by 4meter4). However, the article does not reflect what is in the sources, and instead has a dopey list of collaborations which do not provide notability. I'll add a small amount but this article needs some serious work. Previously: I did find two books with some content: 1) Audio Culture, Revised Edition: Readings in Modern Music. United States: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017 - pp. 406-409. 2) Kádár, Dániel Z.. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. N.p.: Cambridge University Press, 2017 (one page). ~~I don't think this rises to notability at this time.~~ He did write a chapter in a book but it doesn't seem to be a book that has had an impact. Lamona (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. There is a detailed section on the artist extending from pages 88-97 in Graham, Stephen (2020). Sounds of the Underground: A Cultural, Political and Aesthetic Mapping of Underground and Fringe Music. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 9780472902378. The same author covers the artist in a different and significant way in Graham, Stephen (2023). "Mattin and Burning Star Core/C. Spencer Yeh". Becoming Noise Music: Style, Aesthetics, and History. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781501378676. There is also coverage of him in Kim-Cohen, Seth (2016). "No Depth A Call for Shallow Listening". Against Ambience and Other Essays. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 131, 139-143. ISBN 9781501310348., Bey, Thomas; Bailey, William (2012). "Silence is Sexy: The Other "Extreme" Music". MicroBionic (revised and Expanded 2nd ed.). Belsona Books Limited. ISBN 9780615736624. His work is also engaged with in multiple chapters by different authors in Halligan, Benjamin; Goddard, Michael; Spelman, Nicola, eds. (2013). Resonances: Noise and Contemporary Music. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781441146137. There is also coverage/critical engagement of him as a writer on music in these journals [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], This book engages with him as both a musician and music philosopher across many pages. These in addition to the materials presented by Lamona are enough to meet WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one more relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JuniperChill (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to add a very small amount (one ref) and did some copy editing. The sources, while some art substantial, are very post-modern, a language I do not understand. I hope someone can add more to the article. Lamona (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion by 4Meter4 and Lamona that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deltion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music Proposed deletions

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