 | Points of interest related to
Music on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Style – To-do |
| Points of interest related to
Music genres on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Cleanup – Assessment |
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:| watch |
- Related deletion sorting
Peter Shapiro (journalist)
- Peter Shapiro (journalist) ( | 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Beastie Boys Square
- Beastie Boys Square ( | 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 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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
The Vandals / Assorted Jelly Beans
- The Vandals / Assorted Jelly Beans ( | 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)
Non-notable split record. toweli ( talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and California. toweli ( talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Vandals discography#Extended plays: found no reliable coverage in digital archives. Assorted Jelly Beans is a redirect to a band member's article which doesn't even mention this split, and the target I chose appears to be the only place which does. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Radiowv
- Radiowv ( | 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)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All references are just passing mentions, not enough in-depth coverage for an article. Clear friend a 💬 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The sources of the article provide the details on the founding, history, reach, cultural impact, and customers of the entity, which seems quite deep.
The Tennessean, for example, describes the entity as a «tastemaker» within its musical genre. Anyway, the article sources include, so far:
• CNN
• American Songwriter
• Variety
• The Atlantic
• The Tennessean
• Billboard
• Pulitzer-award winning SFGate
• News Corp Australia
Have we ever deleted an article with such blue-chip sourcing from multiple years and internationally coming from multiple continents spanning the globe? XavierItzm ( talk) 01:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)- None of these references offer in-depth coverage which is essential to meet WP:GNG. The Tennessean article is about Oliver Anthony's new song, not the YouTube channel, and only briefly mentions it. All the other sources are the same: brief mentions in articles mainly about the song. This does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Some of them don't mention the channel at all. I'd recommend merging it into another article because some information is useful but it doesn't warrant its own Wikipedia article.
- Also, XavierItzm, if you have "a vested interest in the article," (e.g. you created the article) make sure to disclose it before participating in the AfD discussion (see WP:AVOIDCOI).
- Clear friend a 💬 02:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- You have stated an absolute falsehood: «Some of them don't mention the channel at all» [the references] and I would kindly ask that you retract that falsehood. On the contrary, each and every single source in the article cites Radiovw by name, as can be readily checked in the Refs section of the article.
Yeah, I created that article and I’ve created numerous articles across various Wikipedia projects totaling about 21,000 edits since 2014, including 54 articles in the en.wikipedia alone. As an amateur editor, this is the first time anyone asks if I have a COI, so I guess this is sort of like a new badge of honour for me? As a retired guy since a long time ago, I have zero COIs on the Wikipedia project. XavierItzm ( talk) 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)- Some articles don't mention the subject. This The Atlantic article does not mention the channel, for example. What's actually important is the lack of significant coverage of the channel. The majority of mentions in references are trivial — the references aren't "about" the channel, they just mention it briefly. For an article to meet GNG, it has to have significant coverage. Significant coverage is not trivial mentions (see WP:TRIVIAL). Some references are slightly more than trivial, but are still just brief mentions.
- You have stated an absolute falsehood: «Some of them don't mention the channel at all» [the references] and I would kindly ask that you retract that falsehood. On the contrary, each and every single source in the article cites Radiovw by name, as can be readily checked in the Refs section of the article.
- You do have a conflict of interest at this AfD discussion because you clearly have a "vested interest in the article" (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute). That's not a problem but it's generally policy to disclose it so you don't mislead other participants.
- Snarky remarks aren't helping.
-
Clear
friend
a
💬 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
-
The Atlantic article
[1] is used to establish the styling of the script for Radiowv (which
was the subject of discussion on the TP). And yes, the Atlantic article does use the style RadioWV in a caption and it is a proper use of a source for a debated detail of the article (to wit, the sources use three different stylings: Radiowv, RadioWV and radiowv). The one source you are arguing about and which mistakenly you cited using plural (as if you had found multiple instances of that of which you actually found none) does mention Radiowv in writing!, thus refuting your false assertion: «Some articles don't mention the subject»
Your lack of contrition and refusal to acknowledge your stated 100% false assertion is troubling and the closer should take note. XavierItzm ( talk) 04:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)- I don't know what your point is. A credit in a photo caption does not help to prove notability. It doesn't matter if a reference doesn't mention the subject if you're using it to back up information. We're talking about notability here, though. For an article to meet the general notability guidelines it needs significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. I don't see how Radiowv meets this criteria with no in-depth coverage anywhere and a few brief, often completely trivial, mentions in other articles. Do you have any examples of references that help meet this criteria? Because right now other participants see no evidence of actually proving notability and instead just see useless arguing. I'd be happy to help if you need it.
- Please stop with the uncivil attacks and start actually contributing to the discussion.
- Clear friend a 💬 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
-
The Atlantic article
[1] is used to establish the styling of the script for Radiowv (which
was the subject of discussion on the TP). And yes, the Atlantic article does use the style RadioWV in a caption and it is a proper use of a source for a debated detail of the article (to wit, the sources use three different stylings: Radiowv, RadioWV and radiowv). The one source you are arguing about and which mistakenly you cited using plural (as if you had found multiple instances of that of which you actually found none) does mention Radiowv in writing!, thus refuting your false assertion: «Some articles don't mention the subject»
-
Clear
friend
a
💬 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. The article now includes two WP:INDEPTH refs which are 100% exclusively only about Radiowv. [2] [3] XavierItzm ( talk) 06:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
References
-
^
Friedersdorf, Conor.
"The Misguided Debate Over "Rich Men North of Richmond"".
The Atlantic. Archived from
the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023.
Oliver Anthony / RadioWV [from photo caption]
- ^ Wickstrom, Matt (1 December 2023). "How RadioWV, the Platform That Helped Launch Oliver Anthony, is Providing an Outlet for Appalachian Songwriters". Wide Open Country. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
- ^ Chris Dickerson (13 December 2023). "Defendant files counterclaim in 'Rich Men North of Richmond' case". West Virginia Record. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion as there is no consensus. By now, I've closed thousands of AFDs and while article creators sometimes self-identify, I don't think it is mandatrory or a COI. If anyone who created or edited an article has a COI then so does the editor seeking its deletion. And don't accuse another editor of being "snarky" when you yourself or making irrelevant accusations. Anyone is free to participate in an AFD except sockpuppets and a few editors with editing restrictions so let's focus on arguments and not personalities.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Internet, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any coverage that is unrelated to Oliver Anthony, but I'm also not certain that such coverage is necessary. The "Wide Open Country" reference from XavierItzm, while clearly motivated by Anthony, substantially discusses other aspects of radiowv. As Oliver Anthony isn't a reasonable redirect target, my vote is to keep. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The cited WOC above is only one source, but [1] is another, which according to WP:MULTSOURCES should be enough to establish notability. Aaron Liu ( talk) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Nothing is about this channel that I can find, it's all about the gentleman and his song. Trivial mentions don't help notability. Even with what's now in the article, it's all a one-liner explaining what the channel is, in articles about other things. There is nothing extensive in any sourcing about this channel. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The sources cited are adequate to support the notability of the subject. The fact that a news source is "regional" has no bearing on its reliability; most news sources are regional, and countless notable topics fail to achieve national coverage. A "passing" or "trivial" mention isn't one that discusses one topic in relation to another; it's literally a drive-by name-dropping, and that's not what these sources provide. The article may be in need of cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup.
P Aculeius (
talk) 14:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
-
WP:AUD says that regional coverage cannot be used for notability.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think you should reread the section you linked me to, which says the opposite.
P Aculeius (
talk) 00:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- WVR is a weekly legal publication. The biggest WV newspaper would probably be the Charleston Gazette
Aaron Liu (
talk) 00:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your statement was that "regional coverage cannot be used for notability", and that's explicitly contradicted by the linked section of the notability guideline. Although it gives "the largest newspaper in a state" as an example, that can hardly be regarded as a comprehensive list of acceptable regional sources (by that logic, in Pennsylvania you would have to choose between news from Philadelphia or Pittsburgh; in Ohio, between Columbus, Cincinnati, or Cleveland, etc.). The Herald-Dispatch has a circulation comparable to that of the Charleston Gazette, and there are other papers of significance in the region—just in West Virginia, Parkersburg and Morgantown come to mind as having important papers.
- While the West Virginia Record is indeed a legal paper, it's neither a small-town paper or one of "limited interest and circulation", as described by the policy, which gives as an example "a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job". That hardly describes a legal newspaper covering the entire state—it's not something that could be fairly described as a "newsletter", nor is its readership exclusive to "people with a very unusual job"; I don't think that describes the legal profession, or the business community, very well—although I would certainly prefer coverage in papers such as the Charleston Gazette or Herald-Dispatch.
- The article also cites a number of national and regional sources beyond West Virginia: The Tennessean, The Atlantic, CNN. While their coverage may focus on the specifics of a legal case or individual singers, they provide a bit more than mere "trivial coverage" or "passing mentions" of the channel. Taken together with the other materials, I conclude that the topic meets the minimum threshold for notability, and thus the article should be kept. P Aculeius ( talk) 01:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- WVR is a weekly legal publication. The biggest WV newspaper would probably be the Charleston Gazette
Aaron Liu (
talk) 00:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think you should reread the section you linked me to, which says the opposite.
P Aculeius (
talk) 00:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
-
WP:AUD says that regional coverage cannot be used for notability.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Can someone give me a link to the WP:THREE here? My perusal of what's currently on the article largely looks like someone trying to piggy-back coverage centered around one of their artists rather than significant coverage on the subject itself. Sergecross73 msg me 11:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
SAHDUOO Saxophone
- SAHDUOO Saxophone ( | 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 found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 ( talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Taiwan. SL93 ( talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject in my searches for sources. Sahduoo ( traditional Chinese: 薩得爾企業有限公司; simplified Chinese: 萨得尔企业有限公司) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard ( talk) 10:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Piano Island Festival
- Piano Island Festival ( | 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 appears to be a non-notable festival with no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search yields only a few passing mentions, but nothing that satisfies WP:GNG. GSS 💬 13:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Singapore. GSS 💬 13:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Back Porch Records
- Back Porch Records ( | 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:NORG, was unable to find any significant coverage other than brief mentions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
You Call This Music?! Volume 2
AfDs for this article:
- You Call This Music?! Volume 2 ( | 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)
Non-notable compilation album that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. The only review I could find is the OC Weekly one linked, no other reviews or WP:SIGCOV found. No clear redirect target as the record label was deleted for being non-notable. Last AfD (in 2006) closed as no consensus. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and California. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and lack of sources; arguments from the old AfD no longer hold up. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 03:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so a Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Lots of hits on the name, but none about this album. Not meeting notability requirements these days on wiki. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: "It has lots of Google hits, so it must be notable" was basically the result of the last AfD, what fun times those were. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Here's the linkrotted OC Weekly review. That's not gonna do it. So, can we merge to Volume 1? No article. That album got a 14-word review in the forgotten pages of Punk Planet 54 and an admittedly much better review in Razorcake #2. I can't link you that one because I'm 90% sure the host for the pdf I read is violating copyright. Trust me that it's a pretty good review, but the publication is a self-described fanzine and so—despite its history—lacks the editorial control to be a reliable source to establish notability. Well, let's just merge it to the record label, then. Guess not that, either. Lubal ( talk) 00:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
List of number-one hits of 1962 (Peru)
- List of number-one hits of 1962 (Peru) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- List of number-one hits of 1963 (Peru) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of number-one hits of 1964 (Peru) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of number-one hits of 1965 (Peru) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of number-one hits of 1966 (Peru) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These articles lack any relevant citations, as I raised on their creator's talk page two months ago, so they are in violation of the verifiability policy. Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Peru. Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mach61 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
-
WP:CHARTS makes no mention of La Prensa or any other Peruvian charts, so I'm not sure this data would even be considered reliable to begin with. Also worth noting that if these are deleted, {{
PeruvianNumber1s}} also needs to go as it will be entirely redlinks.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- If data come from Billboard they are certainly reliable (see WP:CHARTS#Suitable charts#1), if they come from La Prensa very likely too (also per Suitable charts#1), but as per the nomination the current reference is blatantly unrelated as points to an article about Aretha Franklin. -- Cavarrone 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I looked into it because I do know that in Perú we've had charts for many decades. The articles nominated are badly sourced and don't have the true information about the songs that topped the charts but I was able to find sources like this one from Billboard Magazine that has a chart from Perú in their "Hits of the World" section on page 28. The source also credits "La Prensa" as the publisher of the chart so the information on the articles isn't actually false, it's just not properly source. We can add some page curation tags to the articles and I can fix them up with reliable sources. I can also share this articles with other Peruvian editors and editors who are part of the Latin Music Project to see if any of them are interested in helping me out with this. FanDePopLatino ( talk) 14:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Hypelist
- Hypelist ( | 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
https://www.larazon.es/tecnologia/hypelist-aplicacion-compartir-recomendaciones-que-necesitas-movil_2024020765c3721a9d142a0001894b5d.html https://www.elcorreo.com/sociedad/hypelist-nuevo-proyecto-exitoso-emprendedor-espanol-triunfa-20240415142712-ntrc.html 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)
- Weak
keepdeleteIt'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) - Delete. Seems almost A7, wouldn't go G11 though. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 09:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Teemu.cod is
Unrelated to Okmrman. Just a bizarre coincidence. --
Yamla (
talk) 11:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- ok thanks for looking into it. my apologies to teemu.cod MaskedSinger ( talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Teemu.cod is
- 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)
- 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)
- @
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)
Magdalena Hinterdobler
- Magdalena Hinterdobler ( | 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 soprano has not received significant coverage in independent sources, bar this one article.
Citations 2, 3, and 7 are from institutions with which Hinterdobler has been associated. The rest provide insignificant coverage, often not more than a half-sentence.
As there is only one source which is both independent and provides significant coverage, the relevant notability criteria ( WP:BASIC/ WP:MUSICBIO) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Theatre, and Germany. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I spent about an hour trying to find WP:SIGCOV prior to this being taken to AFD. You can see my comments on the nominator's talk page as we discussed this before taking it to AFD. I looked at over two dozen critical reviews, and while there are many reviews of the operas she has been in, she is only mentioned in passing or not at all in those reviews. Likewise on reviews of her recordings. The most we get is a single sentence (two at most; and those are rare) with a general critique of her performance. For example, The Guardian review only mentions her name in the title list of leading singers but never actually talks about her contribution to the recording. This is not in-depth. The only in-depth independent source is the first source cited, Opern News magazine article. If a couple more sources of this latter kind are found that would prove WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV are met. Please ping me if sources with in-depth independent coverage are located and I will gladly change my vote to keep. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SINGER #6 "having performed two lead roles at major opera houses." -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 02:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes there is that SNG, but I honestly think that we need to deprecate that in the same way that the RFC on
WP:NSPORTS deprecated many of its similar SNG language. We really shouldn't be building articles on singers that can't meet
WP:SIGCOV for verifiability reasons; particularly on BLPS per
Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES.
4meter4 (
talk) 04:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your opinion that that SNG should be deprecated does not mean that that SNG no longer applies. What is not verifiable about this article? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes there is that SNG, but I honestly think that we need to deprecate that in the same way that the RFC on
WP:NSPORTS deprecated many of its similar SNG language. We really shouldn't be building articles on singers that can't meet
WP:SIGCOV for verifiability reasons; particularly on BLPS per
Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES.
4meter4 (
talk) 04:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I never said that SNGs don't apply. SNGs by their nature often contradict other policies, which is why they are often contentious at AFD. It’s perfectly fine to make a claim to notability using an SNG. It’s also equally fine to criticize the SNG for being a bad policy because it doesn’t align with other policy language elsewhere. There have been many RFCs over SNG language, and several of them have led to policy changes that have→ deprecated certain SNGs within the the last five years. I think it’s reasonable to point to those RFCs as an example of how in certain content areas we have moved towards requiring more in-depth coverage. The need to re-examine our policies only gets established if people start raising that issue in discussions at AFDs. That’s what happened in the NSPORTS case prior to the NSPORTS RFC. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 20:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you are allowed to criticize SNGs, but your opinions of the SNGs are not valid reasons to delete an article passing it; neither is the fact that other SNGs being deprecated sufficient reason for overriding this currently standing and completely valid SNG to delete this well-done article.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
-
BeanieFan11 Not true. Per
WP:SNG "Articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Those calling for deletion are making a valid argument that this particular article lacks adequate sourcing. The main issue of contention here is whether a bunch of low level not in-depth coverage constitutes "adequate sourcing". Those of us voting delete are specifically making the argument that it does not constitute adequate sourcing, which is a valid reason to override an SNG per SNG policy.
4meter4 (
talk) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- May be, not required to be. The guideline was never intended to get rid of well-done articles like this. In what way is Wikipedia benefited by deleting here?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 23:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- In my view, this is likely a case of
WP:TOOSOON where the subject is likely to prove notability in the future, and we have simply jumped the gun and created an article before the independent sources have come into existence that contain in-depth coverage. I think it's best practice to wait to write articles on BLPs when we have a minimum of two in-depth sources for a variety of reasons; many of them articulated at
WP:NOT,
WP:VERIFIABILITY,
WP:BLP, and
WP:OR. One of the major issues in this article is that the majority of the biographical content is cited to PR materials written by talent management and PR firms for theaters, opera houses, etc. It's not best practice to build articles on BLPs from materials of this kind. We do the encyclopedia a disservice when we don't uphold quality standards that emphasize building biographical content within biography pages from independent materials. Not doing so, allows wikipedia to become a tool of promotion for talent management and PR firms, which ultimately creates a conflict of interest between wikipedia's goal of building an encyclopedia, and the potential to use wikipedia for other motives. One of our best means of quality control in terms of both verifiability and maintaining NPOV is making sure we build articles from independent sources with in-depth coverage. That's why we have
WP:GNG. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 00:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, only six of the 21 references in the article are from Hinterdobler's opera houses? What parts of the article are not verifiable or original research?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 15:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes and they also are the most used sources, which verify over half of the article including almost all of the biographical information. The other sources only verify specific roles in specific opera performances. Asserting "only six" doesn't actually look at what information and how much of that information is coming from those non-independent marketing materials. If you can't see the ethical problem here for using marketing tools to verify a BLP article I don't know what to say further. We have two very different ideas about the ethics of editing and sourcing articles on BLPs. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, only six of the 21 references in the article are from Hinterdobler's opera houses? What parts of the article are not verifiable or original research?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 15:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- In my view, this is likely a case of
WP:TOOSOON where the subject is likely to prove notability in the future, and we have simply jumped the gun and created an article before the independent sources have come into existence that contain in-depth coverage. I think it's best practice to wait to write articles on BLPs when we have a minimum of two in-depth sources for a variety of reasons; many of them articulated at
WP:NOT,
WP:VERIFIABILITY,
WP:BLP, and
WP:OR. One of the major issues in this article is that the majority of the biographical content is cited to PR materials written by talent management and PR firms for theaters, opera houses, etc. It's not best practice to build articles on BLPs from materials of this kind. We do the encyclopedia a disservice when we don't uphold quality standards that emphasize building biographical content within biography pages from independent materials. Not doing so, allows wikipedia to become a tool of promotion for talent management and PR firms, which ultimately creates a conflict of interest between wikipedia's goal of building an encyclopedia, and the potential to use wikipedia for other motives. One of our best means of quality control in terms of both verifiability and maintaining NPOV is making sure we build articles from independent sources with in-depth coverage. That's why we have
WP:GNG. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 00:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- May be, not required to be. The guideline was never intended to get rid of well-done articles like this. In what way is Wikipedia benefited by deleting here?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 23:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
-
BeanieFan11 Not true. Per
WP:SNG "Articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Those calling for deletion are making a valid argument that this particular article lacks adequate sourcing. The main issue of contention here is whether a bunch of low level not in-depth coverage constitutes "adequate sourcing". Those of us voting delete are specifically making the argument that it does not constitute adequate sourcing, which is a valid reason to override an SNG per SNG policy.
4meter4 (
talk) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you are allowed to criticize SNGs, but your opinions of the SNGs are not valid reasons to delete an article passing it; neither is the fact that other SNGs being deprecated sufficient reason for overriding this currently standing and completely valid SNG to delete this well-done article.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I never said that SNGs don't apply. SNGs by their nature often contradict other policies, which is why they are often contentious at AFD. It’s perfectly fine to make a claim to notability using an SNG. It’s also equally fine to criticize the SNG for being a bad policy because it doesn’t align with other policy language elsewhere. There have been many RFCs over SNG language, and several of them have led to policy changes that have→ deprecated certain SNGs within the the last five years. I think it’s reasonable to point to those RFCs as an example of how in certain content areas we have moved towards requiring more in-depth coverage. The need to re-examine our policies only gets established if people start raising that issue in discussions at AFDs. That’s what happened in the NSPORTS case prior to the NSPORTS RFC. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 20:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I noticed that one of the two cited references for her Eva in Die Meistersänger,
in Online Merker, includes 3 or 4 lines on her performance, both vocally and in characterisation, calling it "ein starkes Plus" (a definite plus). A search for other reviews in the same publication yielded other critiques of a similar length:
- "debutierte als Chrysothemis glanzvoll ... Das wird eine große Rolle für sie werden!" (made a glittering debut as Chrysothemis ... This is going to be a major role for her!)—we cite this role only from the Frankfurt Opera's summary professional bio
- noting her stagecraft as Susanna in Le Nozze but "vokal wirkt sie an diesem Abend strapaziert" (vocally, this evening she gave an impression of strain)—we don't mention this role
- a review of her Dorella in Das Liebesverbot in 2013 that she may want to forget, "quält sie sich ohne zuverlässigen Stimmsitz und ohne tragende Resonanz durch Wagners Noten" (tortures herself through Wagner's notes without reliable pitch or sustained resonance)—we don't mention this role either.
- There are also briefer mentions that are not mere listings of who sang which role: "eine resolute, selbstbewusste Eva" (a resolute, self-confident Eva); "auch die 'kleinen' Walküren ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, die auch die Gutrune sang, ... sangen ansprechend" (the 'lesser' valkyries too, ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, who also sang Gutrune, ... were equal to their roles)—this compressed Ring is also not in the article. I suspect there are similar short reviews of her performances in other magazines and newspapers, and the article isn't reflecting that coverage because of a desire to focus on her leading roles, use English-language sources where possible, and / or avoid negative coverage. From the point of view of notability, however, I believe that mass of small stuff about her, together with at least one extended biographical article (I don't see the Frankfurter Allgemeine cited anywhere; has anyone searched there for coverage of her joining the company?), puts her over the top. Yngvadottir ( talk) 02:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep we have enough for WP:BASIC. Artists are known for their work and this soprano also meets WP:SINGER. Lightburst ( talk) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- @
Lightburst can you please identify more than one source with "significant coverage" to meet
WP:BASIC. The whole point of the nominator is that there is only one (not multiple sources) with significant independent coverage. Both Yngvadottir and myself have confirmed this is the case which is why I voted delete. Yngvadottir was able to locate several reviews mentioning the subject in one or two sentences but specifically stated they didn't contain significant coverage. Asserting that BASIC is met is just not true with the current sources in evidence. You are the only commenter here asserting BASIC is met, and you have provided no evidence to substantiate that argument. Basic states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] Please produce a second source with significant coverage.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- The next section after BASIC reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. and A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. You do not need coverage to prove notability, you can meet a subject specific guideline instead.
Dream Focus 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You don't need to repeat yourself
Dream Focus. I am aware of the SNG guideline. That still doesn't change the fact that BASIC isn't met which is why you yourself made an argument based on criteria 6 of
WP:SINGER. That's fine if that is the
WP:CONSENUS opinion. I personally am of the opinion that criteria 6 of SINGER is a poor predictor of notability, runs afoul of
WP:BLPSOURCES policy, and is so subjective in its meaning and interpretation that it isn't a well crafted policy. After this AFD closes, regardless of the outcome, I am considering creating an RFC along the lines of
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability which deprecated similar SNG language for athletes. In my opinion BASIC should be our guide. We need at least two sources with in-depth independent coverage to build an article on any BLP in my opinion to meet the spirit of our policy guidelines at
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- My rationale stands and we disagree so please observe WP:COAL and I will do the same. Lightburst ( talk) 18:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You don't need to repeat yourself
Dream Focus. I am aware of the SNG guideline. That still doesn't change the fact that BASIC isn't met which is why you yourself made an argument based on criteria 6 of
WP:SINGER. That's fine if that is the
WP:CONSENUS opinion. I personally am of the opinion that criteria 6 of SINGER is a poor predictor of notability, runs afoul of
WP:BLPSOURCES policy, and is so subjective in its meaning and interpretation that it isn't a well crafted policy. After this AFD closes, regardless of the outcome, I am considering creating an RFC along the lines of
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability which deprecated similar SNG language for athletes. In my opinion BASIC should be our guide. We need at least two sources with in-depth independent coverage to build an article on any BLP in my opinion to meet the spirit of our policy guidelines at
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- The next section after BASIC reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. and A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. You do not need coverage to prove notability, you can meet a subject specific guideline instead.
Dream Focus 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- @
Lightburst can you please identify more than one source with "significant coverage" to meet
WP:BASIC. The whole point of the nominator is that there is only one (not multiple sources) with significant independent coverage. Both Yngvadottir and myself have confirmed this is the case which is why I voted delete. Yngvadottir was able to locate several reviews mentioning the subject in one or two sentences but specifically stated they didn't contain significant coverage. Asserting that BASIC is met is just not true with the current sources in evidence. You are the only commenter here asserting BASIC is met, and you have provided no evidence to substantiate that argument. Basic states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] Please produce a second source with significant coverage.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note to closer. Please consider the evidence and strength of the arguments in your close. I strongly urge you to ignore/overrule arguments made without supporting evidence. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The subject specific guidelines exist for a reason. Someone can be notable for their accomplishments, not just for media coverage of them. WP:SINGER #6 Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03s64z1 distinguished Austrian pianist Rudolf Buchbinder, in London for a rare appearance at the Royal Festival Hall, and the rising star conductor Lionel Bringuier. Pianist Mark Swartzentruber will perform live on the show, ahead of his concert at Kings Place tomorrow. So she is in an ensemble that contains a distinguished pianists, a conductor called a "rising star" in an opera review, and a guy with his own concerts and notable accomplishments. http://markswartzentruber.com/biography/ She was on an album that got a long review. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/feb/14/bruch-die-loreley-review-andrew-clements She is a member of the Frankfurt ensemble, a notable ensemble which she has performed at major opera houses with. https://oper-frankfurt.de/en/ensemble/ensemble/?detail=1256 So a singer can be notable for having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. She performed as Elisabetta in Verdi's Don Carlos Dream Focus 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Just added another RS and performance. Gamaliel ( talk) 19:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Although there is some LOW-level coverage, there is not enough SIGCOV. Performing with a notable ensemble doesn’t automatically provide notability in its own right to an individual. - SchroCat ( talk) 22:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Oper Frankfurt: Coverage seems to be too trivial to have an article about the individual, but they do seem notable in context of the opera company. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ Oaktree b I would disagree with that assessment. There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of more significant singers with biographical entries in music encyclopedias that have been resident performers at Oper Frankfurt during its nearly 250 year long history. If we were to look through the Großes Sängerlexikon for example or The Grove Book of Opera Singers I would imagine we could compile a list of more than a thousand singers who were at one time or another employed by Oper Frankfurt as a resident artist; and all of those would be encyclopedic by virtue of being in an encyclopedia. If we are going to start covering indiviudal singers in an opera company article it should be the most prominent ones. Hinterdobler is a rather minor figure from an institutional point of view, and currently the article doesn't talk about any of its artists from a historical framework. It would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. A company like Oper Frankfurt at any given time employs close to a hundred leading singers in a season ( Currently there are over 90 leading performers with the company between resident and guest artists) They have over 20 operas in their repertory for the 2024-2025 season between revivals of older production and their plans of more than a dozen new productions. Focusing on a single leading artist, particularly one with little coverage, seems inappropriate; particularly when many of their other artists would be high profile artists with lots of WP:SIGCOV. I note that many of the singers currently employed by them have articles, as well as lots of past performers. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. She has received positive critical comment in at least two recognized sources. Further searching in the German press would no doubt reveal more.-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Lean Keep (not familiar with opera, hence not a "solid" keep). Appears to meet the music SNG (which itself should be sufficient, otherwise such criteria are useless) and the nom admits there is already significant coverage. Not to mention the article looks pretty decent – and NBASIC also states that
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability
. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) - Weak keep I added a magazine review to the article. I think we have enough to show that the person is notable and I agree with BeanieFan11 regarding NBASIC. I came here from following the article at DYK. I was the editor who promoted the nomination DYK Bruxton ( talk) 20:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I am the first author, and I don't care if this article is deleted or not.
- I was pleasantly busy over the weekend, - sorry for being late to this, and thank you all who added to the article!! (That sort of collaboration is Wikipedia as I like it.)
- My first indicator of whether a singer is notable often is - as you will guess - my own first-hand personal opinion, for this one as for many others. I hope that everybody who has commented will have listened to her speaking and singing, Der Traumgörge. I saw her (only) in that opera, which was sort of a premiere because the conductor says it was the first unabridged rendering of Zemlinsky's music which had been due for performance (and rehearsed) in 1907, but was not given then for anti-semitic reasons, so had a late premiere in 1980. The only other of "my" singer articles suggested to be deleted was Johannes Hill (so I guess my opinion was right so far).
- I didn't know WP:SINGER but thank Michael Bednarek for pointing that out. It supports my thought that our view on notability should perhaps rely more on what a person factually does (primary), than what others think about what she does (secondary). - For comparison: just imagine we'd require a contemporary review for Bach's cantatas, we'd have an article about one of the around 200 extant. They remained mostly unpublished and unnoticed for a century after he died. - What she does - two leading roles at a leading house - is objective, what others write about it is subjective, and whether we regard what they write as in-depth or not adds another layer of subjectivity.
- In this particular case, I looked if sources supported my opinion that she is notable, and found enough to nominate for DYK, and obviously enough for the reviewer and for most of the readers that day. I simply had no time to look further for more facts and other sources, sorry about that but it happens with my focus on recent death articles and Bach's cantatas that turn 300 week after week (and real life, Bach cantatas in concert and the pleasant company that comes with it), so I again thank those who did that. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- ps: I went to church yesterday to one that was also up for deletion. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Responses:
- @ Yngvadottir, thank you for retrieving sources. You asked for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: sorry, it was hidden under FAZ (Brachmann, Jan (27 February 2024). "Ein Lichtgedicht". FAZ (in German). Retrieved 5 March 2024.) Sorry, I thought FAZ is easier than all that German, and would say BBC, not British Broadcasting Corporation. The reviewer wrote about her singing in a half-sentence at the beginning "frisch, schön und so vorbildlich textverständlich" (fresh, beautiful and with such exemplary diction). I can add that to the article. As for the Mozart reviews, I never saw them, and Mozart seems to be past for her vocal development; her voice was possibly never ideally suited for singing Mozart. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) - I added that review, and also the Chrysothemis review. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @
4meter4, I added the Clements review of
Die Loreley. I am not surprised that the reviewer of a first recording of an opera by a famous composer deals more with the opera than the singers. The review proves, however, that the recording was noticed internationally. - I have no idea why you'd mark what opera houses say about her - typically just a factual list of roles - as "promotional". The Chemnitz bio had a quote from a review. I added the complete review now. But why would you believe the same quote in the Chemnitz bio was promotional? Again, this review (Spinola) of a world premiere deals more with the piece than the singers. It describes her lead role at length. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 16:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @
Gerda Arendt I already wrote this to you in another discussion. I will copy paste it here: "All work products/publications by a performing arts organization are intended as a tool of promotion as well as a tool for information. Opera companies/theatres are businesses and they have an invested interest in promoting their company/theatre and its performers in order to sell tickets. There is a commercial aspect to the performing arts, and the materials that an opera company/theatre produces for public consumption are directly connected to its commercial interests. This is why we should avoid using sources produced by theatres/opera companies as much as possible. Artist bios are written by paid talent management and PR companies. Most professional singers have a paid agent who specializes in marketing opera singers, and those agents often write the bios hosted on theatre/opera company websites. Or the opera company/theatre itself will have an in house PR/marketing staff member responsible for writing those materials. There is therefore, a direct COI with these kinds of sources because they are written as a marketing tool for commercial gain. When possible, its best not to use PR materials of this type for ethical reasons." If an artist is notable, we shouldn't need to use these materials because the independent significant coverage should be there to source the article.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I already responded in that other discussion and also copy paste here: "I don't know what you normally read, but I see that Oper Frankfurt and Hessisches Staatstheater write their own bios, and their own high-class program books. - German opera houses in general are public institutions, financed mostly by tax money."
- Adding: what in the following Frankfurt bio is promotional and not ethical to be used?
- "Magdalena Hinterdobler, who sang her first Evas in a new Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg at Oper Frankfurt last winter, joined the Ensemble in the 2023/24 season, during which she sang Grete in a new production of Zemlinsky’s Der Traumgörge / George the Dreamer and Elisabeth in Don Carlo, which is followed by Chrysothemis in the first revival of last season's new Elektra. Other highlights in 2022/23 included Agathe in Der Freischütz at Theater Chemnitz and Chrysothemis (role debut) in Elektra at Tirol’s Landestheater in Innsbruck. She trained at the University for Music and Theatre in Munich and Bavaria’s August Everding Theatre Academy with Andreas Schmidt, and in Helmut Deutsch’s Lieder classes. She was a member of the Ensemble at Oper Leipzig from 2014 - 2022, where her many roles included Rusalka, Micaëla in Carmen and Marie in The Bartered Bride. Word of her interpretation of Anna in the world premiere of Gerd Kühr’s Paradiese spread far and wide. While working in Leipzig with the Gewandhaus Orchester she also sang many Mozart and Italian roles, including Liù in Puccini’s Turandot and, most recently, Mimì in La Bohème. Her concert repertoire ranges from the baroque to contemporary music. She has appeared with many well known conductors and orchestras including Stuttgart’s Bach Collegium, the Munich Radio Orchestra, the Hamburg and Bamberg symphony orchestras, Dresden Philharmonic and the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchester. She also enjoys singing Lieder with the pianist Gerold Huber. A CD of early Wagner Lieder was released by CPO in 2013, the year she appeared with the Munich Radio Orchestra for the first time as Dorella in Wagner’s Das Liebesverbot / The Ban on Love, which was followed by roles in Wagner operas in Leipzig including Ortlinde and Gutrune in the Ring des Nibelungen under GMD Ulf Schirmer. She continues her journey into young dramatic roles this season with Agathe in Weber’s Der Freischütz at Theater Chemnitz and Chrysothemis in Elektra at the Landestheater in Tirol."
- Not all of this is even used, because I don't like lists of famous orchestras and conductors. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 16:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Gerda I'm not going to get in a back and forth. Wikipedia's policies on COI, non-independent sources are well articulated on multiple policy pages.
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour isn't helpful.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am just trying to understand. Simple question: that Ring in Leipzig - the review says she sang "a minor valkyrie" and "Gutrune". The Leipzig Opera has the full list of the cast, and is - to my knowledge - the only source for the fact that she was "Ortlinde". The source is used only for that detail but you tagged it as promotional. Should we therefore omit that detail, loosing precision? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Gerda I'm not going to get in a back and forth. Wikipedia's policies on COI, non-independent sources are well articulated on multiple policy pages.
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour isn't helpful.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @
Gerda Arendt I already wrote this to you in another discussion. I will copy paste it here: "All work products/publications by a performing arts organization are intended as a tool of promotion as well as a tool for information. Opera companies/theatres are businesses and they have an invested interest in promoting their company/theatre and its performers in order to sell tickets. There is a commercial aspect to the performing arts, and the materials that an opera company/theatre produces for public consumption are directly connected to its commercial interests. This is why we should avoid using sources produced by theatres/opera companies as much as possible. Artist bios are written by paid talent management and PR companies. Most professional singers have a paid agent who specializes in marketing opera singers, and those agents often write the bios hosted on theatre/opera company websites. Or the opera company/theatre itself will have an in house PR/marketing staff member responsible for writing those materials. There is therefore, a direct COI with these kinds of sources because they are written as a marketing tool for commercial gain. When possible, its best not to use PR materials of this type for ethical reasons." If an artist is notable, we shouldn't need to use these materials because the independent significant coverage should be there to source the article.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @
Michael Bednarek, thank you for the reference for year and place of birth, dated 2008. I used it for more detail but it was marked promotional. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- 4meter4's objections, in this case, to material in a program booklet by a public broadcaster are in contradiction to WP:RS. If reliable sources collate an artist's performance data, Wikipedia editors are free, and indeed encouraged, to use that secondary source. That's a widely followed and uncontroversial principle. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 00:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Information published by one's employer (the theatres at which she has performed) is most certainly not independent coverage. The theatre's website or publicatons can be cited to show that she actually performed a role there, but they should not be cited for the theatre's opinion of her performance, as they have a conflict of interest in that they want to promote themselves by promoting their performers. --
Ssilvers (
talk) 03:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, but no opinion or assessment was cited from those sites in this case. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 06:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm persuaded by the additional sources Yngvadottir located and analyzed as well as by the
WP:NBASIC guidance that BeanieFan11 pointed out:
multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability
. While there is the caveat that this coverage should not be trivial, I don't think it is in this case, based on the measure of trivial coverage provided in the notability guideline (the bare mention of Three Blind Mice), as the coverage identified through this review process examines and weighs the tropic's performance quality. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)- If that measure is supposed to be an upper threshold for "trivial", as you imply, then the book-length coverage from the second example must be the lower threshold for "significant"...
JoelleJay (
talk) 00:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mean to imply the Three Blind Mice example is the upper threshold for trivial mentions (it's possible for coverage that is more than the Three Blind Mice example to still be trivial; a hypothetical
In college, Binton Krill was in a band called Five Eye Lice. Five Eye Lice toured the West Coast in 1988
.). I nevertheless think there's sufficient coverage that rises so above the Three Blind Mice example to the point that it's not trivial coverage. As for lower thresholds, I don't think there's consensus in the Wikipedia community for book-length coverage to be considered a lower threshold for significant coverage. With the exception of, say, multivolume biographies/histories, book-length coverage probably tends to be expected to be the upper threshold/expectation for significant coverage. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 06:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mean to imply the Three Blind Mice example is the upper threshold for trivial mentions (it's possible for coverage that is more than the Three Blind Mice example to still be trivial; a hypothetical
- If that measure is supposed to be an upper threshold for "trivial", as you imply, then the book-length coverage from the second example must be the lower threshold for "significant"...
JoelleJay (
talk) 00:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm just not convinced that a couple sentences of praise here and there in reviews really contributes to BASIC, let alone constitutes SIGCOV. Such brief descriptions of performances are absolutely routine in theater reviews and offer no evidence the subject has received sustained secondary coverage. We should not be constructing biographies out of 80% non-independent sources and 20% disjoint quotes on isolated performances -- how can we capture BALASP if separate pieces of information have not been independently contextualized with each other? JoelleJay ( talk) 00:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now this looks like No consensus as editors are very divided about whether or not notability is established by the existing sources. I notice that a great deal of new content and new sourcs have been added since this article's nomination; a source review of this new content would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Farhan Ahmed Malhi
- Farhan Ahmed Malhi ( | 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 actor-cum-model does not meets WP:ACTOR as I am unable verify their "major roles" in TV shows as require by WP:ACTOR - nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: He is a well known actor. His roles in dramas has received coverage. His education and how he started his career is mentioned.
[2]
[3]
[4](
BeauSuzanne (
talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC))
- BeauSuzanne, Your comments sound like WP:ATA. These coverages can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG. Can you provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 10:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about Wp:V. I am saying that three souces meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG plus his dramas are also written in it.(
BeauSuzanne (
talk) 19:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC))
- BeauSuzanne, As the creator of this BLP, you were supposed to provide three best coverage in order to meet GNG. Unfortunately, you haven't done that. The coverage is mostly interviews, which aren't independent of the subject. Such coverage cannot be used to establish GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Unique Kings Obi
- Unique Kings Obi ( | 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: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 [5], and the Independent pieces [6], [7] are examples. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 02:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)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)
List of songs about Bangalore
AfDs for this article:
- List of songs about Bangalore ( | 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)
Previous AFD was a mass nomination that ended in keep, for many reasons, except for the article's actual merits. Because there are none.
The deletion reason is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad, Madras, Oslo etc.: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. Geschichte ( talk) 08:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Karnataka. Shellwood ( talk) 08:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Neutral None of these songs have their own articles, but some of the people singing them do, and the films they are in do as well. Dream Focus 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk) 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Aida Vee
- Aida Vee ( | 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)
lack of notability. little to no 3rd party articles detailing artist Minmarion ( talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, Africa, and Uganda. Minmarion ( talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Seems to have enough sources to satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. ( [8] [9] [10]). GMH Melbourne ( talk) 02:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Violin Sonata in B minor
- Violin Sonata in B minor ( | 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 disambiguation page is redundant of Sonata in B minor, which was originally at this title before a page move. The redirect was then reverted. The two sonatas listed here are already covered at Sonata in B minor (a broader disambiguation page). Additionally, one of the sonatas listed here ( Sonata in B minor (Atterberg)) is only a partial-title match because it is generically for strings, not solely for violin. I propose restoring the redirect. I am also nominating the following page for redirecting as well since it is also redundant:
- Piano Sonata in B minor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) voorts ( talk/ contributions) 19:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Disambiguations. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 19:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Sonata in B minor to avoid duplicate list. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all. None of them is a duplicate of another. -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that they're not duplicates, but they are redundant. Additionally, as I noted, the Violin Sonata DAB page contains just two entries, and one is a partial-title match that's already covered at
Sonata in B minor; I've also reorganized the broader DAB page into sections.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I still think that the Piano one is needed and I therefore do not mind the violin one. -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank) 18:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- (But the latter could be a simple redirect maybe). -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank) 18:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why not just have the piano one redirect to
Sonata in B minor § Piano sonatas in B minor?
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 18:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Because /Sonata in B minor/ primary "super-topic" (in which, Liszt's one is obviously the most notable, ie the primary topic) are the Piano ones imw. Rephrasing: when one searches "Sonata in B minor", it's a piano sonata one is most likely searching, and, very probably, Liszt's, so that it is clearer, in my opinion, to have the piano ones on one page (with a See also for the sonatas for other instruments). I hope I am making sense. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why not just have the piano one redirect to
Sonata in B minor § Piano sonatas in B minor?
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 18:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- (But the latter could be a simple redirect maybe). -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank) 18:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I still think that the Piano one is needed and I therefore do not mind the violin one. -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank) 18:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- So basically you want to merge Sonata in B minor into Piano Sonata in B minor? If that's the case, I don't see why that's necessary, since the current Sonata in B minor page accomplishes that. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 19:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the Liszt piece is the
primary topic, then
Sonata in B minor's intro can be rewritten as follows:
Since all of the non-piano pieces have an article title with "Sonata in B minor", they should not be in the see also section of the piano DAB page since they are valid entries on the more general DAB page. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 19:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)The '''[[Piano Sonata in B minor (Liszt)|]]''' was completed by Franz Liszt in 1853 and published in 1854.
'''Sonata in B minor''' may also refer to:
- To clarify: I do not wish the non-piano instruments individual articles mentioned in the See also section of the Piano sonata DISAMB, my phrasing was misleading, sorry, just the Disamb page for sonatas for other instruments. Having two (or three) DISAMB pages seems at least as good as having 1 in the present case. Hence my K !vote.
- If you wish to restore the REDIR for the Violin one, why not? but again, I'd rather have a Piano DISAMB and a General DISAMB.
- Even regarding the Violin DISAMB, the violin/harpsichord sonata (in B minor)
BWV 1014 is sometimes referred to as "
violin sonata in B minor" (a misleading but
common wording for sonatas for keyboard+ x instrument, when they aren't sonatas for x solo) and could be mentioned there (hence 3 articles). Anyway, decide for the best. -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank) 21:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I get what you're saying. I still think it makes more sense for readers to have one DAB with everything in proper sections, rather than multiple DAB pages. This would also things easier to maintain for editors. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the Liszt piece is the
primary topic, then
Sonata in B minor's intro can be rewritten as follows:
- I agree that they're not duplicates, but they are redundant. Additionally, as I noted, the Violin Sonata DAB page contains just two entries, and one is a partial-title match that's already covered at
Sonata in B minor; I've also reorganized the broader DAB page into sections.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Nuyorican rap
- Nuyorican rap ( | 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 couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. Unreferenced so I am not proposing a merge, though a redirect is a possible WP:ATD. Boleyn ( talk) 18:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The article on Nuyorican rap should be considered carefully before nomination for deletion, as it addresses a unique and influential subset of hip hop culture. However, the decision should also weigh the availability of verifiable sources and the overall notability of the subject as per Wikipedia’s guidelines. -- Improvised but so real unicorn ( talk) 10:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep added sources to meet WP:N. Ruth Bader Yinzburg ( talk) 14:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Didn’t want to substantially rewrite what is here, since that’s a big change, but the added sources and the general coverage of the issue indicate that “Nuyorican rap” is interchangeable with “Nuyorican hip-hop.” This might be worth noticing in the body of the article, and is definitely worth keeping in mind when looking for other sources to continue improving this article. “Nuyorican rap” didn’t return as many solid sources as “Nuyorican hip-hop,” possibly due to the fact that the apex of the genre was the late 90’s, early ‘00’s, when hip-hop was a more commonly used term. Ruth Bader Yinzburg ( talk)
- Redirect to Nuyorican. The refs aren't here to support the article. Desertarun ( talk) 21:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Nuyorican rappers perhaps? Niafied ( talk) 04:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see no consensus here, even on a Redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect This article is a stub with references that don't include the word "Nuyorican", and List of Nuyorican rappers is both unsourced and not supported by many of the target articles. There seems to be WP:OR that implies anyone vaguely associated with both New York City and Puerto Rico that is in music is part of this genre. I would redirect both this article and List of Nuyorican rappers to Nuyorican, with only sourced content merged. Walsh90210 ( talk) 23:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)