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.
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:
Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohsin Khan (producer) from the same author, this fails WP:GNG as the sources are all press releases and interviews. I'm not too familiar with the Indian press, but the only other sources I can find online for this person seem to be at the same kind of level.
Speedy Delete: All I can find are paid press releases and no notable coverage. The subject does not meet WP:GNGorWP:ENT at all. I've went through the discussion on author's talk page raised by @Belbury. It seems like author has COI with the subject through this agency called "Celewish" anyway. He only claims that he did not get paid by the agency. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁15:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: winning a non-notable award isn't notable, the rest of the sources are puffy entertainment/lifestyle sources, not really helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just like Bitter Sweet (Majeeed EP), this critically fails WP:NSINGLE. No source to establish notability here, for the charts, I am very skeptical about this one, also, the song ranked in TurnTable charts or any of the mentioned charts only indicates that the song may be notable, not that it is notable. In this case, this song isn't notable. Again, I am skeptical about the notability of the musician himself, and overall, the user who created this article and so many others which I am skeptical about. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is deceptively written, creating an initial impression that it meets the criteria of WP:NMUSIC unless scrutinized closely. However, it notably fails to meet WP:NALBUM or any of the applicable subsections due to a lack of sources establishing its notability. The content primarily consists of music releases, alongside interviews and passing mentions, none of which sufficiently establish notability on any grounds.
For reference, you may review archived copies of links from The PGM Club and The Guardian Nigeria here:
These archives provide accessible evidence regarding the sources mentioned. I am also very much skeptical about the notability of the musician himself. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find much reliable coverage on this topic to justify WP:GNG. The only source in the article doesn't mention the name "Himna kosovskih junaka" or "Hriste Bože", which is another common name, it only mentions the lyrics, quoted by a single writer and in a passing mention. 🔥Jalapeño🔥Stupid stuff I did09:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], only a single mention. One can find mentions elsewhere, like in this Tivi (magazine) [fi]article. According to a licentiate thesis, "Kurki (2002, p.57–62) used Moppi Productions as
a case example when discussing developing visual styles", but I wasn't able to access the work. toweli (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same as the other nominations I made shortly before this one to come from the Living Tombstone, this album is a notability failure that doesn't meet the general notability guidelinesorNALBUM. All but two sources here are either Spotify or a blatant primary source like a merchandise store. The two sources that are actually reliable are 1 and 11, with 1 being a passing mention and 11 not even mentioning the album once. Any material worthwhile for this album is already included in the article for the band itself. λNegativeMP106:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost TOOSOON. Looks like he just became a musician in the last year or so... These are from a RS per Project Albums [9], [10], just not enough coverage yet to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. No chart activity or notable label work, the usual namedropping of famous artists in attempt to establish notability, and promotional-sounding sources. Never mind the horribly written article with all proper names in lowercase. 💥Casualty• Hop along. •09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see how his music comfort you made itself notable before raising the artist to prominence, promotionally raising a music to stream 20m views on YouTube. The sources sounds advertorial —announcement of new album/release. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!01:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the NCORP sourcing criteria as most of the sources are routine announcements, trade publications or brief mentions. S0091 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was only able to find mentions and brief descriptions (<100 words) of the subject in reliable sources (such as by searching "filetype:pdf "Kosmic Free Music Foundation" " on Google). The article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. toweli (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must not have been on the internet in the mid 1990s. Back then, "reliable sources" would not be covering what they individuals were doing in the online music community. 75.3.240.177 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. My PROD rationale still stands, notability isn't automatic or inherited. There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to entities but an award's significance isn't solely determined by the prestige of the awarding entity or the notable recipients. Instead, verifiable evidence from reliable sources is required to substantiate claims of notability. These sources must specifically focus on the award itself, providing in-depth information. Sources primarily highlighting award recipients rather than the award itself don't establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedly Keep: Article meets wikipedia:Notability, Also meets GNG, all the source are reliable, independent sources and it’s not inherited Notability, i suggest the nominator searches the topic and read through the article, as it’s a Gospel niche award and has multiple references from reliable source, the nominator has always been on my watch and nominates all my article for deletion and i think it’s likely a bad faith nomination but I’ll love to hear from other editors, thanks Madeforall1 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I find the idea that sources need to "specifically focus on the award" as overly strict; if major independent outlets are choosing to cover the announcement of nominees and winners, that conveys a degree of significance to those awards. In other words, there may not be significant coverage of the awards as an organization, but there is significant coverage of them as an event. Having worked a fair amount with TV and film award articles, I think this is in line with other examples (as an example, see Los Angeles Film Critics Association, which is basically just about the awards presented by the organization – the sources cover the ceremonies/nominees/winners, not the organization). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the caveat that I don't know enough about Nigerian media to say if the sources here are generally reliable, but since that wasn't the issue raised in the nomination, I'm assuming they are. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how covering the award itself is a strict measure. How then do we measure the significance of a subject? There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to recipients at events, that aren’t notable awards, even campus/college/university awards are also being awarded at ceremonies, I don’t see how that generally counts towards establishing GNG. These coupled with the fact that most of these pieces from the sources used are just overly promotional and unreliable, WP:GNG isn’t anywhere closely established. Also, using Los Angeles Film Critics Association is a poor comparison, you can’t exactly say an award that has been awarded for over 30 years won’t satisfy GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces, You have dropped your comments before sir why dropping more and attacking someone that dropped his votes and options? As said notable independent news sites have covered more about the event over time and I think in creating articles, it’s shows how notable the award is and it’s not just school or private organization award but an award for gospel artist, as sources is not notable based on the number of references. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Madeforall1 Your comment above is nonsensical because it adds no value to this discussion. You’re literally badgering already and I’ve been playing along with you from your talk page to mine. My comments above were presented in line with this discussion, yours wasn’t and isn’t exactly useful to the discussion. Please stop this poor attitude of yours. Do not ping me if you have nothing useful to add to this discussion, I don’t want to be notified of your poorly presented comments. You’re already giving the vibe of both UPE and COI, and that’s probably the reason you’re upset because an article you created got AfDed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces Is this how you insult people? You don’t deserve to be a reviewer, you are just attacking everyone, you do everything with bad faith, I don’t think you deserve the privileges you got here, you are even a new editor and yet you talk to people carelessly, desist from such act and listen to people, I wonder if you know everything. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Madeforall1: Do you have any sort of relationship with the subject of this article? I agree with Vanderwaalforces, your editing pattern is often indicative of undisclosed paid editing or a more general conflict of interest. If you do have a conflict of interest, whether you're being directly compensated for your edits or not, you have to disclose it. Not doing so could result in you being blocked from editing. Also, comments like yours above could be taken as personal attacks, so I suggest you strike them out. Please reply to this message confirming whether or not you have a COI with Kingdom Achievers Award. CFA💬04:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA, I don’t have any conflict of interests nor connected to the subject, but it’s also not nice for a particular user not to improve and article instead of constantly give bad faith reviews, else I don’t know the subject but I know the award and I’ve seen many gospel artists that have received awards which the references are also added to there articles on Wikipedia so I choose to write about the award. Madeforall1 (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are lots of non-significant awards like university awards, but you're not going to see significant coverage of those winners and nominees in major newspapers (aside from maybe a human-interest story, but the references here aren't that), so I don't really see what you're getting at. If newspapers are independently choosing to report on winners and nominees – and as far as I can tell, the references are independently written, not paid promotions, even if the loaded language can feel a bit promotional-y – that conveys significance to those awards relative to other awards. (As to your LAFCA rebuttal, awards can exist for decades and still not be notable. Depth of coverage, not longevity, is what matters.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article having significant coverage of the event means nothing for notability. What matters is significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. An article could be 20 000 words long and cover everything about the topic and still not be notable. CFA💬23:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could find very little through a Google search; no WP:SIGCOV, only passing mentions. Reference on the article's page is a dead link, and an external link is from a primary source (via Wayback Machine) that doesn't look as though it has been updated since about 2008. Doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSICBIOorWP:GNG. ExRat (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I found this article about Svendsen in Sydsvenskan that discusses his career at length. However, this is the only piece of significant coverage that I could find. If more sources were found of this quality I would support keeping the article, but as it stands there is not enough coverage to meet general notability. Uffda608 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The text in Politikken is an article. It was published in connection with Svendsen's 70th birthday; thus the "biographical" style. /FredrikT (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: This [17] from 1979 but Google only gives me a snippet view due to copyright. He taught in Sweden for a while, there is some coverage there, [18] With those listed above, we have just barely enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional reliable sources coverage identified by Julie and others in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just attempted to find sourcing for this article in effort to conduct wp:before and no significant citations exist that demonstrate wp:n. I would like to propose either a move to a larger article on reggae or outright deletion. This article has clearly been lingering for a very long time without any significant improvements. Variety312 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think we should be careful about deleting this. It seems to have a significant cultural impact on rap and reggae. It has an entry here which is interesting, and at African American Research Perspectives [19], of which I can only see a small part. The label had one release which seems to be of particular significance [20]. I'm not finding enough coverage for a standalone article. Perhaps redirect to How We Gonna Make the Black Nation Rise?? It seems to be significant enough to WP:PRESERVE. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
mention me on reply; thanks!) 01:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]