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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

• Bands and musicians
• Albums and songs

Britishisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The term looks made up, and seems to be OR, we also have other articles (even linked here) for much of this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article can be changed to a more neutral wording, such as "British influence on the world".

In my view, duplicated information is not a sufficient reason to delete this article. British influences on the world have taken place both before and after the British Empire, so having some kind of dedicated resource to discuss this seems fair, and the current Legacy of the British Empire link goes only to a relatively short section in the British Empire article, which is insufficient to communicate the full impact of British influence, as well as implicitly colouring to some extent the overall British impact in more of a Imperial-political light, rather than giving a wholly global overview. In general, it should be possible to learn (or at least be linked to) the same information from different articles on Wikipedia, as this allows for a more comprehensive coverage of any one given topic while still showing the linkages between various topics. Also, there are articles discussing many other forms of -"-isations", such as Americanisation or Croatisation, so having one for a prolifically influential country like Britain seems paramount. GreekApple123 (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Music, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Bin Sojib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks significant coverage that are not puffy PR pieces. Neither the businessperson nor his company appear to be notable. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bangladesh. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His company i will create, he is channel i music award winner, so, i was create his page Susdtr (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was accused of funding the 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement killing mission. I think there is a reason to keep this page. If you seniors think it is not relevant then you can delete it Susdtr (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Checked their business article and this article; found sources to be PR, extensively promoting the subject. Fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 07:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I picked them up from the news, I don't know him personally Susdtr (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A few days ago acted in Imran Mahmudul's song, so I thought it was necessary to make this page, so I did i Susdtr (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BiTrektual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 20:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Cuba, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aurelio Voltaire: found no reliable coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hate Lives in a Small Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 20:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Cuba, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Wilborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability here. Amigao (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Television, Video games, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - all unreliable sources. I like to read gossip as much as the person, but we have never published original material. Bearian (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Herr wird dich mit seiner Güte segnen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Possibly could redirect to Helmut Schlegel. Polyamorph (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Christianity. Polyamorph (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: please inform project Classical music. - This song is published in the main section of Gotteslob, the central Catholic hymnal for all German-speaking countries, actually twice in several dioceses. It also gets sung as I can tell you from church experience (which can't be said of all songs in the book). What else do you need to be notable? It has even become part of a major published work, you can listen on YouTube. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This demanding hymn is covered by notable sources, for example by the musicologist and theologian Meinrad Walter. Grimes2 (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This hymn is part of standard hymn books. This particular hymn has received coverage in several religious websites, here, here, here, and here (quick web search). Church hymns will (almost) never satisfy the the enumerated criteria at WP:NSONG, so that's setting the the wrong bar to clear. OTOH, I think it clears WP:GNG. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw those links, none of which appear to be particularly reliable sources, especially not the blog. Although I take your point that WP:NSONG may not be the correct bar for hymns. Polyamorph (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand how those websites can be characterised as unreliable. "blog" in a URL doesn't automatically disqualify that website; its author is de:Anton Stingl jun.. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Mendez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is my first nomination, so correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the subject of this article is not notable. I haven't found any sources that would talk about him in detail. Li1411 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Li1411 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Name is too common to find anything about this individual, all kinds of hits on various subjects with this name. The one source used now is a PR item, so a non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG on WP:NBIO and WP:PRODUCER criteria. Content available online are predominantly from social media and user generated websites. No WP:RS or WP:IS for WP:V. QEnigma (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Television, Advertising, Puerto Rico, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. If you find 2 or 3 reliable sources, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Petrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mildly promotional biography of a music marketer who fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG; moved to mainspace after being declined at AFC. She seems to have received some coverage for a past connection to Britney Spears, but her notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from Spears. The coverage of this connection is also tabloid coverage (Mirror, Daily Soap Dish, People), which is disallowed for establishing notability per WP:SBST. The remaining sources are limited to:

• WP:ROUTINE coverage in WP:TRADES publication MusicRow ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5])
• WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10])
• WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([11], [12])
• Promotional material like coverage in Forbes of a Forbes-sponsored panel discussion ([13])

As for her 30 Under 30 listings ([14], [15]), there is no consensus that these are the kinds of awards that would make someone independently notable under WP:ANYBIO. (The Forbes 30 under 30 is "awarded" to 1,230 people each year across geographies and industries so is not a rare honor.) I didn't find any other qualifying coverage in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Kentucky. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Master Artisan Guitar Picks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Company is one guy selling guitar picks through Etsy. Notability seems pretty questionable, with almost all the sources being, um, "popular" websites like The Awesomer, BoingBoing, and LaughingSquid. All of which links that I tried are dead. The only functioning link seems to be a Tennessean article of the "spotlight on a local business variety." It's something, but Google has nothing else, and if you take away all the promo and dead links, there isn't much of an article left. Mbinebri (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete The Tennesseean article is WP:SIGCOV, and possibly the Guitar Player as well if it weren't a dead link. All other sources are either product reviews or gift guides. One more reliable non-promotional source and I would be inclined to keep. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To me, this is a promo of this specific brand name picks. Half of the article is devoted to reviews and press coverage. Compare that with any link in the navbox at the bottom. The navbox leads the reader to specific methods and some of the famous pickers who have developed their own particular style. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Blade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominated on behalf of a non-autoconfirmed user claiming to be the article subject:

Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability BladeTerry (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
— Special:Diff/1263157720

I am the subject of this article, Terry Blade.
— Edit summary of Special:Diff/1263146142

I am the subject of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Blade. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? BladeTerry (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
— Special:Diff/1263156892

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are enough sources here to merit an article per WP:GNG. The context of this AFD attempt is that I created a sockpuppet case page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roberteditor, tying together a bunch of IPs and some socks that have been editing the Terry Blade bio and related pages. Two hours and change later, User:BladeTerry registered the username to delete the bio. My guess is that the history of socking is what BladeTerry wants deleted. Binksternet (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not the best quality article for sure, and some of the cited sources are better than others. But based on WP:BLP, Blade seems to meet the criteria of having multiple reliable independent sources. Him not wanting an article isn't a criteria for BLP. guninvalid (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justo Lamas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot find evidence of Lamas' notability as a singer nor for his company which is a worthwhile educational initiative but doesn't appear notable. Coverage appears to be churnalism that is otherwise non independent. There are a lot of hits noting one of the company's artists is performing and some related to someone else of this name, but I cannot find anything of depth. Star Mississippi 04:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Organizations, Companies, Education, and Argentina. Star Mississippi 04:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jms Brynt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and New York. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - GoodMusicRadar doesn't have any author credits or seemingly that much info on the ownership, Earmilk appear to be a more professional operation and there was an article on it until literally a few days ago, the Cultr piece lists an author with no bio and I can find no info on the ownership on site (if anyone knows if its reliable, please tell) Iostn (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rammstein Festival Tour 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NTOUR, article relies on primary sources. मल्ल (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. मल्ल (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:NTOUR. HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Rammstein#Tours would be an appropriate redirect target. मल्ल (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect and also because no Redirect target article was identified here. Please always do with with Merge and Redirect arguments in the future.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet aesthetic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is largely an essay lackign a sourced defintion of "internet aesthetic" and collection of topics that aren't supported through any source suggesting their connection to this term. This is largely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There is one source from Vogue in 2022 that references "internet aesthetics" but not in connection to wide range of examples provided here. ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Presents a list of things that are somewhat related, more of a meme or trends than any sort of related aesthetic items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of this is synthesis. Just because an aethetic or design or fashion is popular in the modern day and is discussed on the internet does not mean it is an "internet aethetic". That's just how the world works now, not a substantive cohesive concept: "that usually originates from the Internet or is popularized on it" – very little in the last 20 years wasn't popularized on the internet, so this is a meaningless characteristic unless you are just fluffing up the most recent and niche trends. "micro-trends such as mob wife and tomato girl summer" Groan. Which sources actually bring the concepts here together? Reywas92^Talk 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For all reasons above. At most, this might be best suited as a category for worthwhile articles such as Corecore, dark academia, light academia, and so on. Only problem is that the title is itself a wholesale invention. I don't think it's influenced the popular literature to remain as . Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the nom and the arguments presented that the article is a synthesis of original research. Perhaps in a few years if scholarly books or articles are written about this topic it will become notable. At this time it is not. Netherzone (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with everyone else. History being a definition of aesthetic with a line from Vogue tacked on? Seems like a desperate, last minute high school essay more than an article. There are individual elements which might be able to stand on their own, but as a whole it's all over the place. Tengu99 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I don't understand why everyone wants this deleted, the pageviews showcase notability and I wouldn't consider it original research, maybe synthesis but ut has still managed to get 90k pageviews this year alone. This0k (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews does not establish notability. See WP:POPULARPAGE. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay. Essays have nothing to do with policy or guidelines, they are opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and I suspect most editors here respect the views expressed at WP:ATA. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respect is fine but is not a policy or guideline. Many editors name essays as if they were canon, they are not. They are opinion and have nothing to do with deletion close decisions (or at least shouldn't). Sources have been found and listed for this topic, and that should be enough, per GNG, to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move - There's a lot of well researched and cited information here. We should discuss moving them to their relevant pages, I wouldn't want us to lose all of this. But yes, the article name and scope is weird so it can be deleted. Egezort (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per This0k and search engine results such as this descriptor, and this art and popular culture site, and many more. Just search for the term and articles, dictionary definitions, videos, etc. appear. When a page receives 90 thousand views a year it has real-world connections and real-world definitions (readers aren't searching for this out of the blue or in a hypnotic state, they came here to find out about internet aesthetics). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination mentions a lack of sourced definitions, here is a link to some (disregard the first, Wikipedia, and look beyond that, such as this long and detailed screenshot article). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. While the majority of sources are unusable, the Glamour article, this First Monday article, and potentially this German one are all usable. Ornov Ganguly TALK 12:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly significant coverage of this, not in stuffy academic literature yet, but that's not a requirement for notability. I've spot-checked a couple of the listed aesthetics and found multiple people referring to them as 'Internet Aesthetics', or found them on lists of 'Internet Aesthetics' of course if things on this list are not called 'Internet Aesthetics' they shouldn't be there, and can be removed. (If that happens to leave us with the two that I picked at random, a delete might be appropriate!) JeffUK 11:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move - Coverage about the topic exists but the information should be rewritten to fit an encyclopedic tone.

Miiversal (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article definitely needs some refreshing but the topic is a significant/noteworthy topic in contemporary culture, per the others 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 09:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also it seems sometime in 2024, someone deleted and rewrote the definition section (the previous text) which previously contained sources along with removing some of the information in history 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 09:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: While there has been significant coverage, the article does not entirely read like something that should be on wikipedia. Aesthetics might be widely reported on and worthy of an article, but does wikipedia really need an entire list of all of these aesthetics? Perhaps the more notable ones can be included in a list category, instead of in an article. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My comments are similar to those of Reywas92, so not worth repeating by me.Plasticwonder (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fitzmartin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

In my WP:BEFORE I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Much of the coverage that there was was related to the subject's role as musical director of the Keystone State Boychoir, and only passing mention at that. I couldn't find any critical reviews of the Concert Mass that is referred to in the article, although its premiere was at Carnegie Hall [16]. I therefore propose that the notability bar is not met, and that the content should be merged into the Keystone State Boychoir article (not that that itself is without problems!) with a Redirect from this article. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge to Keystone State Boychoir.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pickled Egg Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There isn't any significant coverage for this record label. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Frost 16:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Frost 16:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes there is, don't delete. Many people use this wiki page Dave ida (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An old label with many connections to artists and other labels Dave ida (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've added the only references that I could find, and that was an interview with the owner, so it's not much of a reference. I've had a nosey around and can't seem to find any other references that count towards notability. Delete per WP:GNG. Knitsey (talk)
• Weak Keepstrike duplicate !vote There are some articles regarding band album releases on Pickled Egg Records. Fryedk (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant because of relative longevity (for an indie label) and connections to a couple of major acts, most importantly Daniel Johnston. I've added a couple of press refs.MongogramForCandy (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added links for notable musicians who have recorded for the label, including Jeremy Barnes (A Hawk and a Hacksaw, Neutral Milk Hotel, Beirut), Seb Rochford (Polar Bear, Acoutic Ladyland), Alex Neilson (Trembling Bells, Will Oldham, et al), writer, broadcaster (BBC Radio 3 and Radio 4) and musician David Bramwell; plus of course, the aforementioned Daniel Johnston, and the debut Go! Team single. Nigel Turner (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The label famously - some might say, infamously - secured five entries in John Peel's Festive Fifty in 1998, a mere 12 months after launching; I've added a reference for this. The label also set up and managed Daniel Johnston's first European tour; again, I've added a reference to this. Nigel Turner (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added links and citation for the release in 1999 of the Evolution Control Committee's 'Whipped Cream Mixes', considered to be the first modern mash-up record. Nigel Turner (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Because Pickled Egg was a great label and this entry should be kept for posterity! 84.67.149.83 (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hyhas 'KEEP' been struck out here? Doesn't appear to be a duploicate to me. Nigel Turner (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep record label that represented a host of important UK bands. Fryedk (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep! I've referred to this page a number of times, found it very helpful when exploring an area of the music scene that is underrepresented online and pages like this one are an important resource and document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:2B1B:2501:1110:439:E531:A57D (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of refs now, eighteen notable acts on this rosterDanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't have any proof, but this discussion has all the hallmarks of having been the subject of canvassing. Giving it another week to invite comment from previously uninvolved users.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keepstrike duplicate !vote. I've added yet another notable citation, this time for the 2006 BBC Radio 1 One World one hour Pickled Egg Records Special. How many small independent labels can boast of that? The Wire Magazine did an interview with Pickled Egg in the early 2000s, but I can't find any online reference to it. I have a printed copy somewhere, but so far haven't been able to locate it. Regarding the suggestion of 'canvassing', I completely refute this. I have no idea who these people are who have left comments. Nigel Turner (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the Robots & Electronic Brains interview with Nigel Turner. Nigel Turner (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.strike duplicate !vote I've added four more notables, which now brings the number up to 21, or thereabouts. Nigel Turner (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: These are about the best I can find for sourcing [17], [18], I don't think we have enough to show notability. References now in the article aren't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't find any other sources aside from what Oaktree b has already found. No WP:SIGCOV. Procyon117 (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seems to be enough, though light notability. MannyMammal (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There appears to be some confusion over the relevant criteria. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Adding lists of "notable acts" doesn't confer notability on the record company WP:NOTINHERIT. Unfortunately, unless there's another place to put the information, this doesn't meet the criteria. Perhaps someone could create an article on Nigel Turner (Record Producer) which might be easier to meet notability criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I strongly disagree with this. Record labels only exist to facilitate and promote musicians. If you take this line, then no record label should have an entry on Wikipedia. Many of the musicians on Pickled Egg were first brought to the public's attantion on Pickled Egg, and have gone on to become notable following their association with the label. To my mind, this makes the label itself notable. And I fully disclose my conflict of interest here. Nigel Turner (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no desire to have a Nigel Turner Wikipedia entry. The label is notable, not me. Nigel Turner (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the fact that BBC Radio One dedicated a one hour showcase to the label in 2006? Or the fact that the label secured no less than five entries in John Peel's Festive Fifty in 1998? Or the fact that the label released what is recognised as the first ever modern mash-up record? Or the fact that the label organised Daniel Johnston's first ever European tour? If you know any thing about alternative/independent music, you would know that these are all notable. All of these are cited on the page. I know of numerous independent record labels that have Wikipedia entries that haven't even come close to any of these acheievements. Nigel Turner (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • How would you view the notability of Silence Records or Sunflower Records? Randomly perusing through record labels on Wikipedia, there are a great many without the criteria you mention. Are you suggesting we need to remove dozens and dozens of articles? Fryedk (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timōrātus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources are WP:QS and extremely bloggy and they don't adequately support WP:GNG. I suggest deleting it. Graywalls (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Christianity, and Kentucky. Graywalls (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the HM reference is good, and the Lloyd Harp IVM review would be pending on the outcome of the RFC regarding IVM. that's two sources, and we'd want three or four. I'm going to take a look before I make a decision.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only other coverage I can find that would be RS is from The Metal Resource, and it's mostly reviews. I think for now notability is definitely questionable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody is questioning the fact they exist. So the sources do reliably prove it exists. I'm satisfied with that. Graywalls (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep Notable. This0k (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeout vote by sockpuppet whose original account was blocked in November 2023. Graywalls (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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