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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Music.

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Music[edit]

List of songs in Fortnite Festival[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE content that has nothing worth merging into Fortnite Festival. Unlike some other rhythm games, there is no worthwhile coverage of this games song selection, especially since it isn't based on DLC. λ NegativeMP1 21:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 21:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Useless WP:GAMECRUFT list, as said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a topic better suited for some other wiki. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Music. Wikishovel (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrimage (demoparty)[edit]

(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. The only thing I found was this webpage (not article) on The Salt Lake Tribune's website. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, United States of America, and Utah. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yalta (nightclub)[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The sources are almost entirely from DJ Mag which is a single source. Wikilover3509 (talk) 7:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator

TheNuggeteer (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. B3251_(talk) 17:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Bucci[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject is apparently some sort of public school teacher/pianist. I could not find any indication of notability. BLP has had no non-circular references since 2006. The result of the previous AfD in 2007 was no consensus. I am unable to apply BLPPROD due to external links. XabqEfdg (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing came up on Google. Found two archived references from his Italian article, which are questionable per "WP:TEACHER" RolandSimon (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, and Italy. XabqEfdg (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Music, Education, and Italy. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- most claims to notability here are of the "inherited" kind. Otherwise normal career of a working musician. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genre b.goode[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject; the most I've found is just "[...] with the news that the group’s new physical releases will be released through former Shock Records head David Williams’ David Roy Williams Entertainment under TISM’s Genre B. Goode imprint." (1). A redirect to TISM would make sense as an alternative to deletion. toweli (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I started this page with nothing nearly twenty years ago and it appears to have grown not at all since. There aren't even any sources. The most interesting thing about it is the image, in my opinion. -Gohst (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Australia. toweli (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the TISM article as suggested seems fine, that's the only mentions of the label I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to TISM; clear preferable action, didn't need to come to AfD. Chubbles (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TISM in case anyone searches for the name, but a separate article or even a merge have no merit because the company gained none of the coverage that is necessary per WP:NCOMPANY. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helium 3 (record label)[edit]

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

Tagged as relying too heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources all the way back in 2011, it is clear that thirteen years later very little has changed. Literally none of the sourcing is reliable -- the only two unique sources are the Muse fan wiki and WP:DISCOGS, which both fail WP:USERG. A Google search turned up only fan websites, articles about Muse, passing mentions, etc. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG handily. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear merge target to Muse (band), no need to bring to AfD. Chubbles (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muse (band). The subject of this article is not notable for a page. It is merely the Warner Music imprint used by this band. There is no secondary sourcing on it and notability for an imprint is not inherited. Not notable for a page. Neither is there anything on this page that should be merged. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere, either Muse as mentioned or to Warner. Graywalls (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Ebel[edit]

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

Seeking to re-instate re-direct Tooth & Nail Records, which was initially reversed by public relations effort by Tooth & Nail involved role account. I re-instated the re-direct, but it's being challenged in Special:Diff/1226976635 and that editor requests it to go through AfD. Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and California. Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panta n' antamonoume[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Greece. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Greek name is Πάντα ν' ανταμώνουμε. I find it very hard searching in Greek. Geschichte (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Keep? (or redirect to the channel or to Rika Vagiani, where I've just added it). https://program.ert.gr/details.asp?pid=3844901&chid=11 ; NewsBomb articles https://www.newsbomb.gr/tag/panta-na-antamwnoyme including https://www.newsbomb.gr/media-agb/story/429147/erhetai-to-panta-nantamonoyme) or this kind of things: https://typologies.gr/πάντα-ν΄ανταμώνουμε-στη-δτ-με-την-α/ (and yes, it's in Greek),-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light Hill Music[edit]

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

This is pretty much WP:INHERITORG. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. These sources are paid promo puff and advertorials. Too promotional to be called reliable pieces. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Organizations, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable record label. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it’s not a record label but a gospel music community. Check references. Madeforall1 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is about a gospel music group and not a recool label, it’s an independent gospel group with notable artists. The references as real facts, true facts and all visible on the internet, everything mentioned on the articles are reliable and from reputable news publications, when the keyword “Light Hill Music” is searched, you find sources corresponds with the references, kindly check the YouTube page of the topic I have written about and check it out. I’m not connected to the subject but it’s a community of artists I’ve seen there songs trend and I wish to write about them here, So I strongly suggest this article should be kept, there are no exaggerations, articles is written in line with Wikipedia community guidelines Madeforall1 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable music group, does have a sense of promotion about it. The sources aren't terribly in depth; having a youtube in this day and age isn't notable. We'd need to see charted singles, musical awards or other forms of musical notability here, see MUSIC. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Measure of Music (conference)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent and affiliated with the conference and its founder. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Previously PRODed by another editor, disputed by page creator. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811: Hi, I'm the author of this article. Measure of Music (MoM) is not a company or organization, it's an annual event – do you think it shouldn't be held to the same standards as Wikipedia:NORG? Is there something more comparable we can explore? Many of the peer articles on the main Category:Music conferences list have the same caliber of PR based sources, which is where I got the idea to make this contribution. For reference, I mirrored other international reoccurring events like M for Montreal, Japan Music Week, Midwest Music Summit, and International Music Conference while researching and building this article for MoM. Thanks for your suggestions. Copeland.powell (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ganesha811 had earlier suggested two criteria against which such a recurring event can be evaluated. Both require "significant coverage", see WP:SIGCOV. Let's check the very first source (musebycl.io): it is a site self-declared as "Home to Creative Marketing, Advertising News", clearly fails the "Reliable" criterion. Attempt to view the content (to other editors: disable the Javascript first!) is blocked by an enormous pop-up ad. Past the ad, an interview by the founder, clearly fails "Independent of subject". We are all volunteers here, very few people would check any further. I did: the second source (Technical.ly) is by the founder herself.

Arguing that some other articles are not properly sourced either generally does not work, see WP:WHATABOUT (maybe they should eb deleted, too? maybe better sources exist, just not added to the article yet?).
Викидим (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and checking some of the references above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Викидим (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allan von Schenkel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a musician, and not found anything to add. I don't think he meets WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Tacyarg (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find any mentions of this musician, I don't see awards or charted singles. Not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No verifiable source. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Val Ramos[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this unreferenced biography of a musician, and cannot find coverage to add. I do not think the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSIC. Tacyarg (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and New York. Tacyarg (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturne Party[edit]

(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. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and France. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Ho King[edit]

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

Highly unlikely to pass the WP:10YEARTEST (and WP:SUSTAINED). Content which isn't related to the song isn't substantial enough to merit a stand-alone article. – Hilst [talk] 15:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Music, and Companies. – Hilst [talk] 15:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it not only got popular because of the feud but it has been in business since 1976. So it will continue to be in the news and magazines (especially local ones like Now) as it has been for the last several decades Freedun (yippity yap) 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it will get coverage because it is a very popular restaurant in toronto regardless of the feud Freedun (yippity yap) 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, took a spin through the hits, and before the feud there’s not enough coverage for an article, just lists, listicles, coverage of nearby crime, and one art collective that named itself after the restaurant, everyday restaurant coverage stuff, not anything that would give the restuarant lasting notability. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (Ruth Bader Yinzburg)

Here are some news articles from a long while before the feud. [1] [2] Freedun (yippity yap) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XIX International Chopin Piano Competition[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a thing there's absolutely nothing of any significance to say yet. This is still about a year and a half away, so we obviously don't know who the prize winners or even the competitors are -- literally the only thing we can say about it at this point is basic competiton rules sourced to the competition's own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-building source.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation next year if and when there's actually reliably sourceable stuff to say about it, but we don't already need a boilerplate placeholder article to exist now. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Poland. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have now added numerous sources and expanded the article. The competition will begin on 23 April 2025, which is less than a year. The Chopin Competition is the most important musical event in Poland and one of the most significant events in classical music. Creating an article at this point, also considering that the rules have changed considerably for this edition, which is surely of interest to the reader, seems to be justified. As more verified information becomes available closer to the event date, the article can be further expanded. I believe having a well-sourced preliminary article now is preferable to waiting until the last minute. intforce (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The time for an article about an event is not "a year out", it's "when there's substantive things to say about it beyond just 'this is a thing that will happen'". Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Meh. This is crystallbalish but useful, and there are already some sources about the upcoming program. Yes, technically we might be justfied with dratifying this for a while, but seriously, this is make-work that is pointless. We know this event will be notable. Why waste time moving it out from mainspace and back?

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apoapsis Records[edit]

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

article reads like an advertisement (fails WP:NOTADVERT), with an overreliance on primary sources, for a record label with only two artists signed (fails WP:INHERITORG). if any part of this article can be salvaged at all, it would work better as a part of either Vasileios Angelis or Apostolos Angelis (composer), or simply redirected to either of these two pages. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Greece and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a splendid merge candidate that did not need to come to AfD. I see no reason why a redlink would be a better solution. Chubbles (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, delete everything else crated by OrangedJuice for obvious self-promotion or public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support deletion of the redirect if the artist founders are also found non-notable. Chubbles (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Energy (Melissa Manchester song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Dug through everything including WP:LIBRARY and only found passing mentions. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, no significant coverage in reliable sources and fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSINGLE. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematics (album); absolutely nothing to suggest that this song meets notability criteria.TheLongTone (talk)
Redirect - agree with User:TheLongTone Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematics (album) - It was released as a single and someone else did a cover version, but neither of those rose beyond fan trivia. The fact that it was released as a single can be described at the album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microjazz[edit]

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

Unsourced for 5 years and cannot locate any reliable sources to get it to meet WP:GNG. Random line of sheet music, not inherently notable. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Education, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, this [3] helps, I'll see what else comes up... Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christopher Norton: Most hits are in relation to Christopher Norton [4], [5] are brief reviews... Unless someone can find better sourcing to !keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Music company[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a defunct instrument company that didn't make much of an impact. The only sources are a Youtube video, a product catalog PDF, and a fan forum - and that's after a user contested my PROD and looked for sources. Google News returns nothing. A search of Guitar World also comes up empty. A search for one of their guitars only returns some sales listings. Seems non-notable. Mbinebri (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Zanahary (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this instrument maker. Being defunct, I doubt we'll find much of anything at this point in time; what's used in the article for sourcing isn't sufficient. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry, there was a deletion tag on the Switch Music company page that explicitly stated that : "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."

So, I have edited the article, removed the deletion tag, so how come it's up for deletion again although this was explicitly discouraged in the deletion tag?

I have also expressed reasons to retain (Keep) this article in the article's talk page, which I'll reiterate here: "Hi, I think that the subject of this article is relevant and interesting as Switch was one of the few companies using plastic rather than wood on a guitar body, equally it was manufactured by injection molding rather than carpentry. Although this was successful in terms of acoustic quality, and although the instruments were attractively priced, the company failed commercially. We can't link to the company website as it has ceased to exist. On the other hand this also means that this article can't be intended as marketing or to build company credibility. The information here is referenced by the creators best as we can given that there isn't much in the way of academic literature, which kinda comes with the territory. I have also added some inline references as requested by the deletion-proposer."

I'm saddened that an improper shotgun policy is being used where the article will be brought up for deletion multiple times until it finally is deleted. Maikel (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson Electro-Musical Products[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG Once you take out the primary sources (source 1 and 2), you are left with 3 sources used for brief statements. source 3 is a product review thus not SIGCOV, 4 is a product listing thus not RS, source 5 is an ad in a magazine, thus fails RS. A search for sources turned up a mix of product sites, database entries, Social Media and other Primary sources. Prod objected to on the basis that: " longstanding, well-developed article deserves additional review" Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Illinois. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that the article is poorly written and sourced, rather than it failing the "general notability guideline". I ran a quick search and found three sources quite early on, that seem reliable, that discuss the company or founder: https://www.thediapason.com/news/peterson-electro-musical-products-celebrates-75-years https://www.premierguitar.com/peterson-electro-musical-products-inc-mourns-the-passing-of-founder https://www.guitarworld.com/news/peterson-electro-musical-products-inc-mourns-passing-founder I suspect that if if you were to search for the products listed in each of the latter paragraphs, you would find them reviewed and discussed in the appropriate trade magazine. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly ran another search on a few product names to see if I was right, and I appear to be.

https://charlestonclassicalguitar.org/blog/2023/09/24/peterson-stroboclip-hd-review-precision-tuning-at-your-fingertips/

https://guitarinteractivemagazine.com/review/peterson-stroboplus-hd/

https://www.guitarworld.com/news/peterson-stroboplus-hdc

https://www.musicradar.com/news/peterson-stroboplus-hdc-guitar-tuner

https://www.premierguitar.com/gear/quick-hit-peterson-strobostomp-hd-review

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/peterson-stroboplus-hd

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/peterson-vs1

https://mixdownmag.com.au/reviews/hardware-and-accesories/reviewed-peterson-stroboplus-hd/ (no byline)

Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review of your source list:

source 1: a brief routine press release about the company reaching 75 years, does not contribute to notability
source 2 and 3: the same press release published by two different publisher, about the passing of the founder does not contribute to notability
If I remember correctly product reviews that focus on one product are not WP:SIGCOV of the company, thus do not contribute to notability of the company.

SO in essence no SIGCOV that is required to pass GNG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources from WP:PRODUCTREV. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it does seem that those first three are press releases. Sorry. However, if if product reviews are not permitted, you should start nominating most articles about records for deletion as reviews are all that sustain them. The same goes for record labels. I suggest that you go back and try to do searches, as I suggested. There is a lot written about their products and the company. Their products are used widely in the music industry and the (and the company) have been written about. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:PRODUCTREV there are three caveats: the reviews must be 1) significant, 2) independent and 3) reliable, which the sources I provided are (except the one without a byline). And for what it is worth, I did not try hard to find sources. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product ... do not count as significant sources So no the product reviews are not significant. What PRODUCTREV means by the caveats is that if the product review gives a broader review e.g. such as reviewing the product as part of a company review and that this company review section must be significant. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if product reviews are not permitted, you should start nominating most articles about records for deletion as reviews are all that sustain them err no need. WP:PRODUCTREV is a subset of WP:NORG, records have a different guideline WP:NSONG which allows critical reviews. Different topics have different notability guidelines. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then a move may be in order. Either way, we'll see what other have to write about the subject. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not one of the facts attributed to non-independent sources 1 and 2 in the article are found in those sources. It is quite possible that the web site has changed considerably since 2011, but this means that very little of the article can be verified and that the content attributed to those sources must be removed. The resulting article will be very thin indeed. Yes, there are product "descriptions" as noted above, and a few that are more than just recitations of product details, but I don't think that product listings or reviews alone rise to NCORP. We would need some substantial sources about the company itself. I did find some mentions in books: mention1, mention2, but just mentions. The most ample source of information is the obit in Premier Guitar, but that isn't enough to achieve NCORP. Lamona (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This subject fails both WP:GNG (especially as to substantial/in-depth and enduring qualities) and WP:NCORP. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 00:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Shapiro (journalist)[edit]

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

Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep on the subject of this article. I disagree with the nominators assessment here - particularly as the applicable guideline is WP:AUTHOR, where independent coverage of the author's work is sufficient to evidence notability; WP:INHERITED does not apply. I have found and added several independent citations to the article, including a number of RS book reviews and RS articles stating the importance of the works of Shapiro. As such I !vote to keep this article per WP:AUTHOR#3: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Article could really use expansion however. Per WP:NOPAGE I also recommend a single central article on the author and his works, rather than multiple articles on the books themselves. ~~- I recommend Modulations: A History of Electronic Music is redirected to Shapiro if the result of this AfD is to keep.~~ ResonantDis_tortion 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you adding reviews links to the article. I disagree with you on the eligibility for WP:AUTHOR #3. While the author has created a couple of independently notable works, none of the reviews or sources describe the significance of his body of work; they are about individual works. While I agree that Modulations and Turn the Beat Around are notable, I don't think there are any sources to describe them as "significant" nor do any sources discuss them in the context of Shapiro's body of work. Considering that the only available sources are reviews of individual works, the notability should go to the works themselves. Furthermore, the reviews provide virtually no WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, which would leave this article a WP:PERMASTUB without verifiable biographical information. The absence of significant coverage points toward delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is enough coverage to write a non-stub article on Shapiro that is focused on his works. Frankly I find the sourcing on Modulations: A History of Electronic Music to be limited - it struggles to meet notability guidelines and it should be merged and redirected to the parent article Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, as a section in that page. As for WP:AUTHOR#3 - I am struggling to follow the above logic as the guidelines clearly do not require secondary coverage of the works as a body; a single book suffices. In this case we have at minimum one fully notable work and several more works with RS secondary coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period, and the best place to manage this would be the single article on the author. To support this with an example, His 2005 book, The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, has reliable sources both recommending it and stating it is important; but this is likely not enough for a standalone article, so the author article is the next best place. (Note - given the age of some of the books - we can very likely presume that offline coverage exists beyond a standard search engine). ResonantDis_tortion 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I question on criterion 3: is his work "significant and well-known"? I agree the one book meets the standard of "notable," but "significant and well-known" is different, if undefined. I find it difficult to understand how someone's work could be significant and well-known and the author of them remain sufficiently unknown that there are no reliable sources to validate even birth date or country of origin. (Sources disagree about whether Shapiro is American or British.) I'd be OK with a redirect of this page to an article for Turn the Beat Around if one were to be created, but without anything significant coverage I'm defaulting to WP:COMMONSENSE for a situation in which we can't really construct a biography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going to disagree on this one. Given there are a number of reliable sources dedicated to the subjects' other books, but are not sufficiently SIGCOV in and of themselves to create several separate articles for each, the best option (per my version of WP:COMMONSENSE!) would be the other way round: Turn the Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco should redirect to Peter Shapiro (journalist) so we have a single page for all his works. ResonantDis_tortion 02:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the addition of new sources, I don't see any particular concern with notability. Shankargb (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To elucidate why I think the (many) book reviews of Shapiro's work don't constitute WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, here's what the sigcov policy states: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Right now, the article as it stands is just a few sentences, hardly any about Shapiro himself and about his work, and the sourcing doesn't really permit anything further to be written. As noted above, we don't even have the most basic information about his life. Thus my argument that the books are notable but that the author is not. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on whether WP:AUTHOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ : I've also found this [6], but it also appears on the article author's (Howard Blas') website. I suppose it's a RS Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and this in Variety [7] Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this article refers to a different Peter Shapiro (concert promoter) - who also writes books on the music business. Which makes source finding doubly tricky! ResonantDis_tortion 05:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I find no coverage for this individual, sources I'd identified are for a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beastie Boys Square[edit]

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

The topic of this article does not meet WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. In short, this is one of many commemorative street names given to locations in New York City. The only coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS coverage of the renaming being denied, then approved. A previous attempt to merge the content to Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square (where the content has already existed since September 2023) per WP:NOPAGE was reverted. Epicgenius (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and New York. Epicgenius (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore merge location above, or merge to Beastie Boys. Fair game to mention somewhere, but I'm failing to see why it needs its own stand-alone article when there's so little of substance to say on it. Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is quite a lot of coverage on the 10 year journey. There are plenty of articles, probably over 100 plus TV coverage.. it will, be included in books and it is a designated Sq in NYc. Def passes Wikipedia:GNG VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MERGEREASON - even if there's sources, its a valid decision to merge things if the article is short and easily placed in the context of a related article, which perfectly fits in this situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one looking for info on the square would go to an article about an album. I added several articles from 2014, 2019 and 2021 to show ongoing coverage but, there are thousands more and the article could certainly be improved beyond what would be appropriate for a section under Pauls Boutique. There is coverage on several votes, the guy who lobbied for it, and the tasks they had to accomplish to get it approved. I didnt write a front page article.. its 3 days old.. do what you want but there is 10 years of I n depth coverage.. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point about "no one looking for info" will be easily met by leaving a redirect from Beastie Boys Square. ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to WP:REDIRECTs and how they work, people will find it just find it just find in the merge target if they type in the name in the search bar. And if there's "10 years of coverage", then you should use that to write an article with more substance and content. Right now its quite barren. Is there anything else to say other than "they tried a couple times and eventually it happened?". There's not much more than that right now... Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated it with some more info but the idea is they have a huge fanbase to contribute.. the article was 3 days old before he tried to delete it without even leaving me a message on my page. VeniceBreeze (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldnt anyone think this is an important site that should have coordinates and a map pin for tourists? VeniceBreeze (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is objecting to the inclusion of coordinates or a map. However, when I merged the article, it looked like this.
I understand you may feel offended that I didn't leave a message on your talk page when I merged the article. I did not delete anything; all of the content in the article, aside from the references, was already in Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square, with some minor wording changes. To be honest, I was looking for reliable sources so the article could be expanded, but all I found were references that parroted what was already in the page, as well as unreliable sources. (This page currently contains four NY Post sources, which are generally not reliable per WP:NYPOST, and an Atlas Obscura geography article, which is not reliable per WP:AOPLACES.) – Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ny post is fine except for politics. Its the oldest and most read paper in ny. If you dont like it, a simple search for beastie boys square before 2020 results in 1000s of hits.[8]https://www.google.com/search?q=beastie+boys+square&sca_esv=cfae4c7047bddcaf&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS945US945&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2013%2Ccd_max%3A2019&sxsrf=ADLYWIIt9UAK34OYWynm8i2jGGNjm9pQxA%3A1716659031135&ei=VyNSZv7xB_7GkPIPmqGEqAo&ved=0ahUKEwi--YCeramGAxV-I0QIHZoQAaUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=beastie+boys+square&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2JlYXN0aWUgYm95cyBzcXVhcmUyBBAjGCcyBBAjGCcyERAuGIAEGJECGMcBGIoFGK8BMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeSO0OUIkDWPwHcAF4AJABAJgBYKABowOqAQE1uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIFoAK5A8ICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BmAMAiAYBkgcDNC4xoAftIw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp VeniceBreeze (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to post an external link.. not sure why that all came out. I posted more sources incase the ny post doesnt represent reputable coverage of The Beastie Boys and NYC events. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what WP:NYPOST says... Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be an experienced editor.. why are you purposely being ignorant and obtuse? I said i added additional articles.. LA Times, Variety, Billboard, Rolling Stone.. all prior to the 2020 coverage.. there is plenty for an article and its a tourist attraction. VeniceBreeze (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do what I said? You said NY Post was okay to use outside of politics. That's objectively not the current stance. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not say i added billboard, rolling stone, variety,and the LA Times if you werent happy w the NY Post's coverage of the Beastie Boys. All before 2020? VeniceBreeze (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't commenting on everything you said, I was merely singling out a falsehood you stated in your argument. You haven't countered that point at all, so I'll assume you're dropping that aspect of your argument. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to provoke me into an argument. You can lawyer all you want but an easy search shows how many articles the nypost is cited in. Also, i feel very threatened and triggered by the messages and attempts to provoke me on my talk page. I would appreciate it if you would keep the conversation here. Im done working on this article.. if 20 years of experience lead you tp these beliefs, fine. I believe in quantum information storage, so if your lying it will be recorded for eternity. Best of luck to everyone.. good bye beastie boys square, no page forever.. thanks to these voters VeniceBreeze (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to provoke you into anything. I corrected your statement on the NYP and notified you of WP:NPA on your talk page since you keep calling me "ignorant" and "obtuse" for not agreeing with you. How you feel threatened by this series of events is beyond baffling to me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore merge to Paul's Boutique § Beastie Boys Square, which contains content identical to the article, although missing the Gothamist source. A merge will preserve the visibility of the history and the functionality of inbound links. Folly Mox (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back Porch Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, was unable to find any significant coverage other than brief mentions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Wisconsin. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I'm confused as to why this was taken to AfD at all. The nominator initially redirected it to a list page of EMI sublabels, which I reverted because it was not subject to any discussion, nothing was merged, and the target had no information about the label. The nominator then immediately brought it to AfD, when the obvious thing to do would be to start a merge discussion; I mean, for Pete's sake, this label put out full lengths from people like Frank Black, Shannon McNally, Charlie Sexton, and John Hammond Jr., so of course we don't want a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the record label has released many well-known songs (which Chubbies mentioned) and there is some important information currently in the article. Freedun (yippity yap) 23:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG and wp:sigcov. The signed artist do not make the label notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. The Banner talk 23:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign your comments and if you are proposing a Redirect or Merge, identify a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypelist[edit]

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

This is an WP:ADMASQ of a non-notable app/company. Speedy deletion was contested by a new editor who claims to be a "fan" of the app. No evidence of satisfying WP:NPRODUCT or WP:ORGIND. The references all provide routine coverage and/or are from unreliable sources. Teemu.cod (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Software. Teemu.cod (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my analyzation of the article:

Like said in the nomination, the article, especially the product section, is positive about the "mobile social application". Buzz words like popular and AI-driven are used along with a dose of ethos, stating that several celebrities use it.

The citations seem to mostly based in trendiness or promotion. For example, HIGHXTAR is designed to advertise to the youths. Trying to research the topic, most of the citations seem to be of the same caliber but there may be a few citations. Any additional citations should be analyzed. ✶Qux yz ✶ 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, as with Alfonso Cobo and related articles. There are sources from MSN, Conde Nast, Avenue Illustrated, and many other well-known sources. The article is meant to be a summary of existing sources, some of which might be bordering on the promotional side, but that can easily be fixed. There is no overtly promotional wording either, such as "award-winning" or "innovative" for instance. Moreover, this article satisfies basic notability criteria. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaghrebiFalafel, this is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria applies. You mentioned three sources. The MSN article is about a singer using the app - the article mentions the company in passing and does not provide any in-depth Independent Content about the company - fails CORPDEPTH. The Vanity Fair article is a "puff profile" on the founder and relies entirely on an interview. All the information is provided by the founder and has no Independent Content. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Finally the Avenue article has zero in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH. Are there any other sources you believe meets NCORP? If not, perhaps you might reconsider your !vote? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Id looked up to see if there was any new news and didn't find any. Then given there already are some references in Spanish thought id see if there are other results in Spanish and there are: Larazon El Correo. They seem to say more of the same thing ie new app from this guy and it does xyz. I dont know if this helps establish notability. If the issue isn't the references, but the subject matter, so be it. If I had to vote it would be weakish keep but I also get the desire to delete. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~ delete ~~It's all hype about hypelist, and it may be TOO SOON, but the sourcing is reasonable. If this app does not pan out, the hype here may not be enough to save the article in the future.~~ I looked again and the software has no reviews in the mac app store, and it only has one rating. All that we have are product announcements. I'm !voting to wait and see. Lamona (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sourcing might not be enough in the future, then it definitely won't be enough now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your comment got me to look again. Lamona (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems almost A7, wouldn't go G11 though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources about the song can't establish notability, because notability isn't transitive. The only source I think could possibly establish notability is the Rivera article. The Vanity Fair article is an interview that contains almost exclusively quotations from the subject themself, and I couldn't immediately establish the other sources as credible. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I have mentioned elsewhere, Hypelist is definitely notable and has quite a few users. It's widely used by now and many other applications with similar notability levels are also on Wikipedia. Redcrablegs (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a lot of people an app does guarantee notability. That's also a weasle statement: how many people are quite a few and who is providing these numbers? ✶Qux yz ✶ 17:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Came back here to see what happened since my first comment. I noticed that the vote by Okmrman was deleted and they've now been blocked for being a sock puppet. On April 30 there was a comment on his talk page regarding spurious tagging of pages for speedy deletion. That was on April 30. This article was nominated for speedy deletion by a somewhat dormant account on May 9. The speedy was contested and 9 hours after this was nominated for deletion the sockpuppet voted here. Not that this affects the vote here one way or another. Sock puppet or not, doesn't impact whether a subject is notable or not, but the powers that be may wish to cast the Okmrman sock puppet net wider and investigate the editor who nominated this article for deletion. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz @Yamla Looking at this some more, I'm now convinced that Teemu.cod and Okmrman are one and the same. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, they were blocked for disruptive editing and their other account was the puppet (they're the master). It is a little weird, has AfD always been this much of a sockfest? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It is peculiar. Then again, longer one spends here, harder it is to get shocked. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teemu.cod is Unrelated to Okmrman. Just a bizarre coincidence. --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks for looking into it. my apologies to teemu.cod MaskedSinger (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People here saying the *company* is notable and then talking about the product are missing the point of establishing the notability of the *company*. None of the reference meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. If you think one does, can you please post a link here and point out which page/para meets NCORP including CORPDEPTH and ORGIND? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Kings Obi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or any related SNG. Sources are either passing mention, primary or not independent of the subject. The only sources that give SIGCOV are obviously promotional paid puffs and connected to the subject. The Vanguard piece [9], and the Independent pieces [10], [11] are examples. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is a notable figure in Nigeria and has enough sources to prove this. The passing mentions for were added to as an evidence to a sentence. The references about the African Creators Summit were also added to evidence the information that he is the founder of the summit Mevoelo (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NGRS these sources are considered generally reliable: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Vanguard is considered generally not reliable, but with all these subject would meet WP:BASIC.Hkkingg (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider this or this a good source, then I’m afraid you do not know what a good source that is suitable for Wikipedia is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: Per nomination above. ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє] 09:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviram7. Why is this a speedy delete? Which WP:CSD criteria does this meet? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Novem Linguae: Hello, I use XFD Partipcaition tool for vote on here, I simple tagged for delete but I don't known how add delete before speedy sentence, and I know all WP:AFD discussion who are currently open they will be closing after 1 Week and I fixed this issue. Happy editing!ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє] 05:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks for clarifying. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Below is source assessment of the sources cited in this article;

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://tribuneonlineng.com/unique-kings-obi-makes-it-top-5-list-of-talent-managers/	This is more or less a vanity list	Even though Nigerian Tribune is reliable per WP:NGRS, What's journalism without bylines?	~	✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/01/01/championing-collaboration-the-inspiration-behind-the-african-creators-academy/	This is obvious from reading the piece	Even though This Day is reliable per WP:NGRS,What's journalism without bylines?	This doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV on him, rather on "The African Creators Academy" which in itself is still really not a significant coverage	✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/business/domestic/nigerian-creative-industry-launches-the-african-creators-summit/xgzd2dd	Pieces from "PULSE MIX" are usually promo puff, paid advertorials etc.	per WP:NGRS	Of course not, this is more or less a coverage on "African Creators Summit" and not Obi	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/01/lasisi-unveils-as-host-for-african-creators-summit/#:~:text=The%20organizers%20of%20the%20African,January%2025th%20and%2026th%2C%202024.	I will not assess the independence of this source since it does not apply to Obi	~ Publication is marginally reliable per WP:NGRS, but this piece lacks a byline which renders the whole piece useless here on Wikipedia.	Just like Pulse Nigeria above	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/01/meet-unique-kings-obi-talent-manager-digital-marketer/	Obvious paid advertorial, promotional puffery	Ditto		✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/04/08/the-future-of-the-nigerian-content-industry-a-conversation-with-unique-kings-obi/	This is an interview published in a way that makes it read like a news piece. The headline says it all "A Conversation With Unique Kings Obi". "When asked about", "Obi points out", etc.	Ditto	This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi.	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/content-distribution-in-the-digital-age-unique-kings-obis-approach-to-reaching-global-audiences/	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi.	✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/top-5-talent-managers-nurturing-success-in-entertainment-industry/	This is a duplicate publication by Nigerian Tribune that I assessed first, so, Ditto	Ditto	~ Ditto	✘ No
https://independent.ng/unique-kings-obi-paving-way-for-digital-talents-to-soar/	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	✘ No
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/music/211256-okiemute-ighorodje-emerges-winner-mtn-project-fame.html?tztc=1	I am not going to assess this source as it is reliable but does not apply to Obi	Ditto	Ditto	✘ No
https://independent.ng/solvent-digital-moves-to-better-customer-service-relationships/	I am not going to assess this source as it does not apply to Obi	Ditto	Ditto	✘ No
https://techcabal.com/2024/01/19/african-creators-summit-2024-countdown-to-africas-foremost-creative-workshop/	Pieces by "Partner" from TechCabal" are usually sponsored/paid advertorials. In fact, this tells the whole story of all the sources used in this article.	Sponsored contents are not considered reliable	This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any comment to the source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music Proposed deletions[edit]