Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Music. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Music|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Music. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Music

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Düsseldorf School of electronic music

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

WP:OR no sources, this is a fictional term, made up by a Krautrock fan, and posted here on Wikipedia. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively, create at Wiktionary, delete here. By all appearences this is a neologism-ish term, probably coined in hindsight, yet certainly not fictional:
- 1 "(…) artfully unifying the so-called Düsseldorf School (…)"
- 2 "Another from the Düsseldorf School."
- 3 "(…) the influences of (…) the so-called Düsseldorf School (NEU!, Kraftwerk, La Düsseldorf) can be recognised."
- 4 "The Düsseldorf School – industrial architecture as “anonymous sculpture”"
- 5 "This time the trio pushes us in the Teutonic rhythms of the Düsseldorf School with the fragrances of Mythos' Krautrock style and the robotics rhythms of Kraftwerk."
- 6 "One focus will be on regional scenes such as the Düsseldorf school of electronic in the 1970s with music groups such as Cluster, Neu! And Can"

There's regardless the usual problem that music genre terminology tends to evolve mostly organizally, without authoritative sources. I believe the above selection suffices to establish the existence of the term, but it does not run very far for sourcing any actual claims. Without more general sources turning up that actually assert this as a distinct concept, we will not be getting far in article-writing. And currently there's no real content in the article anyway other than a definition-by-extension. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources to verfiy this. You'd expect at least something to be gleaned from the articles for Kraftwerk and Can, but nothing turns up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalac Records

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

Record label and fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources that cover it in-depth. Listed artists may also be non-notable (some are listed as "incarcerated, probation, or deceased"). CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These Wikipedia Pages since previously has been on for 10 years, but after 10 years later demoted to User Draft because of improper format and lack of references" Now some references have been added.... I believe as a artist grows so do their enemies...Yameka (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage from reliable sources. I note that the MTV site used as a reference for several statements is user-generated. And the prlog.com site is just that -- a repository for press releases. None of these references are independent of the subject organization. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the current article and coverage is convincing enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Home Is

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

This is another completely non-notable solo release from the singer of Bon Iver to the add to the list. See also: Self Record and Hazeltons edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 10:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose because I would've also suggested redirecting but this may simply be best deleted as there are no likely signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babymetal World Tour 2015

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

There is no in-depth coverage of this tour (not individual concerts, but tour) that make this notable per WP:NTOUR. It happened, and we know it, and we could possibly have a sentence or two in the main article, but this was not a notable tour. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at other bands and pretty much all the tours of a big band are seemingly articled separately like this — like their albums or even singles. Doesn't Babymetal have hundreds of millions of views on Youtube? I don't know if the tours really need their own articles but it does seem to be the standard. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pages for the likes of U2's The Joshua Tree Tour lack online sources, but no one would submit that for AfD. Sites like KpopStarz (frequently used as a source for Korean and Japanese culture on EN Wikipedia) refer to the tour as opposed to individual concerts [1] and the number of verifiable sources on the latter for this 2015 tour is hard to dispute. Article doesn't meet WP:NOONECARES. Jun Kayama 15:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as the current article seems satisfying and convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google news search brings up plenty of 3rd party coverage from various music news magazines sites. Seasider91 (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babymetal World Tour 2014

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

There is no in-depth coverage of this tour (not individual concerts, but tour) that make this notable per WP:NTOUR. It happened, and we know it, and we could possibly have a sentence or two in the main article, but this was not a notable tour. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes notability points and sources are highly valid. Any world tour has to be big, and the venues are arenas which makes it a huge venture. To merge all the information onto the Babymetal article would be too long and too offtopic since it was acknowledging a tour. Choicerpex (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked at other bands and pretty much all the tours of a big band are seemingly articled separately like this — like their albums or even singles. Doesn't Babymetal have hundreds of millions of views on Youtube? I don't know if the tours really need their own articles but it does seem to be the standard. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources in the article currently look to be mostly about the DVD release. Google News has a bunch of hits, but the English-language ones don't seem to be too compelling. For example, [2] from The Independent, which is basically just an announcement. There's also [3] from The Guardian, which, at the very bottom of the article, says they're the youngest act to play at Budokan. I don't really think that's enough. I'm a bit reluctant to outright vote to delete, though, because I'm not sure I'd be able to find Japanese coverage. I'd feel better if someone could comment about Japanese sources. Maybe they go more into detail about the Budokan record? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Madhalam. And merge as appropriate from history. Sandstein 09:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maddalam of Palakkad

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The only reference merely asserts that this product has been registered with the government of India. This does not necessarily constitute notability, but the article does not even assert that the subject is notable for any other reason. ubiquity (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:WHATNOT. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: how? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Wikipedia is not a collection of things. If it would be, then we will have four hundred articles about different drums. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: Ok, but the problem is that "thing" doesn't actually mean anything. There are plenty of ways to argue that Wikipedia is a collection of "things" (articles, topics, concepts, entries) and certainly has lots and lots of articles about things as in objects -- including many, many articles about different drums. Typically when someone points to WP:NOT in an AfD it's because there's a problem with the article other than notability -- i.e. it's a image gallery, it's a dictionary entry, it's an indiscriminate list, it's a how-to guide, it's about predictions rather than what has already been written about, etc. It sounds like what you meant was that it's not notable, though. Not trying to give you a hard time, here, but you should know that just saying "fails WP:WHATNOT" without context means whoever closes this discussion can't really give your opinion any weight (it's not a vote, after all). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - Expanded the article by adding additional references indicative of the notability of the topic. The original article was started as a stub. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I am an organizer, I won't vote here, but let me write the same thing what I wrote on article talk page: please read this, not only the GI thing, please note the other thing written about the instrument. You may explore more here. --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why is this not an obvious candidate to Merge into Maddalam? I understand there are distinctions, but aren't we talking about a particular subset of the topic that is Maddalam? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could see it being a section in the Maddalam article. I think Merging this article into Maddalam is a better option than deleting it outright. ThePortaller (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: This article was expanded for Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Events/Geographical Indications in India Edit-a-thon. --Prof TPMS --Prof TPMS (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Madhalam as a duplicate (as far as I can tell), and clean up both. ansh 666 00:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE-After reading both the articles , what i found is that the so called subset article has more info on Maddalam than the original article about that topic.My argument here is that the original article on maddalam is deficient on many aspects , hence merging this article with maddalam article would be good.Apart from that there is a portion on peruvambu village , the article on peruvambu village is too a single line entry hence the article on peruvambu can also be enhanced with this article topics, so i propose a merger of the peruvambu section of this article with peruvambu village article Surajme23 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Madhalam and I would've also said delete because how serious the current article looks. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TPI Sound

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

Not an obviously notable PA / speaker manufacturer. I turned down a CSD A7 because these sort of companies supply to large scale popular events or artists, and hence become notable by that means (eg: Carlsbro, Mackie, Watkins Electric Music), but I can't find any decent sources for this one at all. A complete blank in Sound on Sound (watch out, TPI is a well-used acronym so there are lots of false positives!) is a major red flag. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly nothing to suggest assume better, WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run-of-the-mill regional PA provider who builds their own boxes from 40 year old designs. I probably would have hit this one with the db-spam template myself if I'd seen it first. Being a service provider of a notable event doesn't make a company notable unless the company themselves have been featured in write-ups and/or behind the scenes documentaries. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any good coverage that would satisfy the WP:CORP requirements. /wiae /tlk 23:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio RZ-1

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. Just specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not of great quality but the drum machine is notable for its use in early house and techno music. Please mark article as low quality, do not delete.

Delete - Questionable, as mentioned, unlikely solidly independent. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main article is sufficient . DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio WK-3000

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

Just a list of specifications, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is pretty useless. I don't mind it being deleted.

I made it a long time ago, not entirely sure what I was thinking at the time.

Tundra010 (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is possible that it is notable, if there are major reviews,but it would be easy enough to reconstruct it if there are DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio CZ-1000

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. Just a list of specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, unlikely independent for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Casio CZ synthesizers has all the information that's actually necessary, and we do not need a redirect from what is essentially a variation of a better-known model. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Editors favoring keep haven't engaged the issue. That there were three previous AfDs closed as "keep" is irrelevant. AfDs aren't binding precedent; there is no doctrine of stare decisis here (and for all that, an administrator could have easily closed the third nomination as delete instead of keep, but I digress). That a WikiProject finds the site reliable doesn't get it over the threshold on its own: a source can be reliable without being notable (which is why WP:NNC doesn't apply here). Passing mentions on other websites don't make a website notable, nor does mention in unpublished doctoral dissertations. Contra some participants, policy is the foundation for these decisions unless there's a really great reason to ignore them, but no such argument was made. Regarding the charge of canvassing; it appears interested editors from the other side were invited and participated, so it doesn't affected the outcome. That being said, KDS4444 (talk · contribs), please don't do that again. Also, while AfD is not cleanup, it is a reasonable argument and expectation that for an article whose notability was first challenged in 2007, progress would have been made since then. No prejudice toward recreation with reliable sources with non-trivial coverage of the site itself. Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Freak Hideout

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

Virtually all of the links given in the "references" section are no longer functioning (or never were). Others lack independence from the subject, or are Alexa rankings (which do not qualify as useful indicators of notability). Article requires non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent, verifiable sources in order to be retained— nothing here shows that, and my own search turned up only more trivial mentions and sources lacking independence. Previous deletion discussions relied on assertions of notability (irrelevant: see WP:ASSERTN) and on its subjective importance to the Christian Rock industry (see WP:IKNOWIT for why that doesn't matter) and I suspect the fact that there have been three such nominations which have failed will also be mentioned (that doesn't matter either: see WP:LASTTIME). What matters— the only thing which matters— is the existence of multiple non-trivial discussions of the subject in reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Which there just doesn't seem to be.KDS4444 ^Talk 16:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as never having been notable despite the decisions of prior AfDs to keep. While notability is permanent this never showed notability ever. Show me that it is notable and I will change my opinion, assuming you call me here from my talk page (I'm not active at present, but respond to messages on my talk page coz I get emailed). Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Which was done as a courtesy notification— you're welcome KDS4444^Talk).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of impact and coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after 3 AfDs surely someone would have added the nontrivial RS by now if the truly exist. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussions. assuming good faith on the sources having once existed is fundamental to this encyclopedia. It's not necessary to be mean. Then contacting only the two people who previously nominated it for deletion, without contacting any supporters (besides me who originally started it), is considered WP:CANVASSING. The website is likely the most well-referenced standard in the American Contemporary Christian Music genre scene. Using a google search, I see pages and pages of websites from major notable artists that are referencing JFH's reviews [4] [5]. Having the article deleted will only service to create 500 red links on articles [6]. Royal broil 04:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability has been established by 3 prior failed AfD's and the fact that over 1800 main space articles currently link to the article. Many if not most of those articles are using this website as a reference and it is valuable the encyclopedia to not have a redlinked reference in 1,800+ articles. Apparently many people in this project feel it is worth using as a reference, further demonstrating notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fourth attempt to delete this article again appears to be POV pushing.Nyth 63 16:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previously AfDed for WP:WEB and WP:CORP, no notability sub-guideline is identified here. As for the claim, "Article requires non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent...sources", no, notability is not a content guideline, see WP:N#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Since deadlinks are good as WP:RS references, just harder to locate, the nominator confirms that he/she has not read some of the good-faith sources already provided for this topic. Moving on, WP:BEFORE B4, B5, and B6 are issues. B4 has been dismissed with an argument whose source says, "If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend 'Keep'..., arguing that because the article failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it. This is a good argument in some circumstances..." B5 shows a large number of links being proposed for turning red, this number was reported in a previous AfD, and turning this many links red would seem to be a high-priority consideration for the nomination. I'm not convinced that 1800 edits to the encyclopedia are possible linking to a topic that has failed to attract the attention of the world at large over a period of time (WP:N nutshell). As for B6, there are three foreign language websites not reviewed in the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at best as this seems notable for its field, likely not a serious deletion task. Notifying the only still considerably active past AfDers as well, Walter Görlitz and Carrite. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pinging me. The project was notified and quite frankly, I'm tired of the perennial nominations for deletion. I agree with you that it's notable for its field. The number of articles and labels that link to the reviews here are substantial. In my brief survey yesterday, that was the majority of mentions I found via Google. I looked at other reviewers and review sites and it was nowhere near as plentiful. With that said, I don't think that the deletion of this article will jeopardize its use as a source because, as you wrote, it is well-recognized. If this is an attempt to delete references and reviews as not notable and then to delete the articles because of their lack of references, then I have a problem with the deletion of this article. If it's simply an effort to apply GNG to the far corners of Wikipedia, I'm fine with its deletion as an article, provide, and only provided, that it still recognized as a niche RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was not aware that causing the appearance of redlinks was a reason for retaining an article on Wikipedia. That's a new one for me. I've also mentioned that the outcomes of previous AfDs had no bearing on this new discussion. Some editors don't appear to have heard this. As for the three foreign language sites not reviewed— which are these? #1 is an Alexa ranking, #2 is a dead link to a website called "Lead Me to the Rock" (English, I am pretty sure), #3 is a link to a site that allows me to find a Christian retail store near me (in English), #4 is published by Jesus Freak Hideout itself (in English), #5 is a dead link to a press release (in English), #6 is a dead link to Sparrow Records (the resulting 404 error gives the reader nothing to pursue beyond its disappearance, but I am pretty sure it was in English), #7 is a dead link to what looks like a trivial mention in a listing of merchants starting with the letter "J", #8 is a dead link to a marketing website (in English), #9 is a link to an interview performed by JFH with another person (in English),#10 is a link to an article written about the band GLO by JFH (in English), and #11 is another Alexa link ("Site information", which appears to be in English). None of these are foreign language pages, and I examined all of them. Even the dead links appear to have been at best dubious arguments for notability (a dead link to a marketing web site is still a marketing website, failing independence; a dead link to a trivial mention is still a trivial mention; a dead link to a press release is still a press release, failing independence). Not one of these sources appears to be evidence of real-world notability. I am not saying it isn't referenced by lots of Wikipedia articles— any article whose notability has been established by reliable independent sources should be allowed to stand, and I am not arguing that JFH isn't reliable or independent. I am arguing that it is not notable because it has not been the subject of such sources. I have no argument with you, Walter: we are both on the same page. I am only trying to apply the guidelines for notability here, and this article seems to come up short. Too short, in the end, to justify retention. KDS4444^Talk 16:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability can be interpreted to mean that a fair number of people know about the subject, i.e. it is not trivial. If you click on the what links here tool from the subject page, you will see that there are well over 2000 pages that link to the article, which is verifiable evidence that a lot of people that are aware of the subject. Secondly, you are wasting your time proving that the current links are broken. Please refer to WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The fact that these sources existed, and that more are available (easily found with google) is what matters, not whether they are actually in the article. See also Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.. Also your contention that previous AfDs are irrelevant is silly. The previous arguments that exist in those AfDs do not disappear into a vacuum. The fact that this page template links to them in an infobox certainly proves that they are considered relevant. WP:LASTTIME was quoted at the top but in that section is the statement If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. This fourth nomination appears to be frivolous to me. Furthurmore per WP:FALLACY you are Denying the antecedent (and its variants, like the fallacy fallacy) is a formal fallacy. Nyth 63 11:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched for it and got mentions in 3 doctoral dissertations, all plausible topics (City Church, Tallahassee: Blurring the lines of sacred and secular Medic, Katelyn. The Florida State University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2014. 1559547. )(Behind the scenes of "The Steve Taylor Story": A documentary Gibson, Sarah Edith. University of North Texas, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2009. ), (The industry, geography, and social effects of Contemporary Christian Music Lindenbaum, John Daniel. University of California, Berkeley, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2009. 3383280. ) An ordinary news search turns up articles like this [7] establishing that it is a "Christian music website". I think we can confidently keep it. More significantly, however, I don't think we should run endless AFDs, certainly not on outfits that have been shown in previous AFDs to demonstrably exist and that are obviously not mere advertising or POV pushing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by admin comment: that so many articles link to something is not an argument for keeping. That an article has been unsuccessfully nominated in the past is also not an argument for keeping. That an article has been unsuccessfully nominated in the past is also not an argument for deleting. If I were closing this, I'd look for keep arguments that have some specificity to them and cite policy; so far, E.M.Gregory is the winner, and probably the only winner. Come on y'all: you can do better than this. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argument and discussion are not restricted to policy only. Policy is subject to change and is not the same today as it was 15 years ago and in continuing to evolve. To say that only arguments or votes that city policy are valid is a logical fallacy and I would expect better from an Admin. Of course, the the comments about red linking ARE arguments per se, as several editors have made it. (I think, therefore I am, so to speak). There just does not seem to be any current policy that directly addresses this particular situation so one cannot be cited. Stating that the previous AfD's are not relevant in any form is also a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent as I quoted from policy in my previous comment above. Nyth 63 12:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would have us base decisions to include or to delete on... intuition? We have policy so we know what to do and so we can avoid guessing-games and long, drawn-out discussions like this one. I am not convinced that you can make an argument to retain an article based on the premise of a policy that you would like to see exist but which so far has not materialized and which quite possibly, in my own mind, never would. I am sure that is a fallacy of some kind but am unsure of my semantics beyond that. KDS4444^Talk 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thank you for the kind words. Here is The Christian Post: attributing something to "Jesus Freak Hideout, a Christian music resource website and ministry.] [8] My search on Jesus Freak Hideous at Christin Post here: [9]. I'm sure if other editors look there is more out there in other RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How much more thorough does this need to be? It has talked to death four times already. Consensus seems pretty clear for keep. Nyth 63 18:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This publication is used by other reliable sources, such as Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music right in this search. It is also mentioned in Contemporary Musicians right in this search. These two instances are enough for me to consider this publication a notable website, for inclusion as part of this ever growing encyclopedia.The Cross Bearer (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If reliable sources cite it, then it's likely also reliable. But that doesn't have any bearing on whether it's notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:N is a measure based on evidence that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the keep votes have demonstrated how the website has received significant coverage. There are probably thousands of brief references to JfH's reviews, but it's a lot harder to find something substantial. I think that these sources probably exist, but the might be offline, and if online, seem to be buried by the gazillion brief quotes attributed to the site.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM. Closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clap Your Hands Tour

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

Fails WP:NCONCERT TOUR Rob Sinden (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 14:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionably notable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Cardenas

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

fails WP:NMG Semitransgenic _talk. 15:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Cardenas is notable according to point 7, in that she has "become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style", in this case Algorave and Live Coding as evidenced in the references which includes two international print publications and a television broadcast, introduction of live coding to two different continents, and appearance at major international festivals. Yaxu (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article as-is demonstrates that the subject meets the criteria of being "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style". Therefore if Algorave is notable, then so is Cardenas; she has represented algorave in international mass media including Arte TV and Wired (magazine), and been key to introducing it to Mexico and India. Yaxu (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A further comment in favour of keep, it seems clear that this meets point 7 but also on point 12, the subject "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." For example the Tracks broadcast on Arte, here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_NQKPH91kM, with additional material online here: http://www.arte.tv/de/hacking-clubbing-algorave/7769884,CmC=7768150.html Yaxu (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as of Yaxu's rationale. --Fixuture (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is internatioally recognized. I've updated the reference forms and added references. She's been performing and reported on all over the world. To be sure, this is too short an article, but it can be improved. WP:Before applies. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Swarm ♠ 04:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of the Clouds Tour

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

Not notable theatre tour in support of the artst's first release. The sources do not bear out that it received significant coverage with one review, date announcements and revenue for two shows. Fails the guidelines on WP:CONCERT Karst (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tour of very popular Swedish singer Tove Lo. Clearly notable. Sources can be improved I agree.BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and see if this can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 06:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Car song

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

Unsourced and not a common term. I could be convinced it's a list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - no sources, no indication that it's anything other than the article creator's own invented term. Even as a list, the term would be ridiculously broad - there's probably hundreds of thousands of songs that mention cars. Rockypedia (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I nearly went with delete but I believe a workable article can be spun out of this. Regarding the possible size of a list, sure there are a lot of songs, but if we use our usual guidelines and restrict entries to those deemed to be good car songs by reliable sources (example), it probably doesn't come out as much. I'm also thinking things like this could be covered, as I see "car song" and "driving song" as synonyms to some extent. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's clearly a notable topic here. Here's another source: Early Songs: Romance and the Road. Andrew D. (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Does not appear to use the term. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is totally irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia about things, not a dictionary about words, so there is no distinction to be made between a source that contains the phrase "car song" and one that contains the phrase "songs about cars". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly related to hot rod rock, but there are plenty of reliable sources dealing with the car song. I found the following in a quick search through Google Books: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet hot rod rock does not have its own article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There probably is enough for one. As another possibility, that content could be merged into this one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just go ahead and say merge the content of the "hot rod rock" section in surf music into this article, per the following sources (as well as others): [15], [16], [17].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is full of unreferenced opinion and it is almost impossible to make it anything else. For starters songs metnioning cars have been written and been successful since the introduction of cars. From WP, I give you one example from 1905, In My Merry Oldsmobile, together with a quote from the article, "The song's chorus is one of the most enduring automobile-oriented songs. The verses, which are slightly suggestive (by 1905 standards) and contain quaint terms for lovemaking, are seldom heard today" So the question is, is it a song about "lovemaking" or a car? Taking another song, which is mentioned in the article, Mustang Sally, where the lyrics read, "You been runnin' all over town now/Oh I guess I have to put your flat feet/On the ground" Now that reads like a song about promiscuity, not motor cars. Cars used as euphemisms in songs. Keep on trucking. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to better define the term "car song." Per my arguments above, it seems that the "car song" genre is synonymous with "hot rod rock," and can be defined by reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ritchie333 & 3family6. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless this just becomes a list of songs about cars, I don't see the use of this article. It isn't an actual genre (like hot-rod music), it fails to mention any history or any example of a "car song" before the 1950s. Just because a band wrote a song about a car does not mean it was part of some sort of "car song" craze. My point is this article is too broad with no actual evidence to back up its worth. A hot-rod music page would be nice though.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment - it's also worth mentioning cars in songs are actually associated with surf rock and the California sound, both of which are clearly mentioned in detail.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick and Richhoncho, if the article were refined to deal mainly with just that, the hot rod rock scene associated with surf rock and the California sound as well as any additional songs that reliable sources consider part of the "car song" or "hot rod" genre, would you agree to keep the article?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3family6 my main concern is this article has nothing to do with the hot-rod genre and "car song" isn't even a musical genre, so it would be best to delete it. Nothing is useful from the article and it has a total lack of direction. Hot-rod music is a subgenre that is known to exist primarily in the 1950s and early-1960s. A "car song" is not automatically relevant to such an article. The only way to save this article, in my opinion, is making it a list.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3family6, If you intend to make it hot-rod relevant this article might as well be moved to a draft space because the name is wrong. The underlying problem of articles and categories by lyrical content is that you cannot find independent information to confirm that it is about a hot rod etc. As I pointed out the singer may have bought Sally a Mustang, but it NOT about a car. I would be pleased if there is an editor that can prove me wrong. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article title might be correct - I'm not sure which is more common in reliable sources "hot rod rock" or "car song" - both seem to be used highly frequently. The article as is probably should be moved to draft space, as it needs to be entirely reworked. There is a genre called "car song", the same way that there are murder ballads, but, looking at several reliable sources, this "car song" genre seems to indistinguishable from "hot rod rock". However, I agree that just any song that mentions cars, or is even about cars, does not qualify - the article should be restricted to songs explicitly considered "car songs" in reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The murder ballad article has prose sections: description of the genre, history and cultural references sections. All of these sections are referenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is notable for inclusion as part of this encyclopedia, by the coverage found in the sources from 3family6.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is certainly encyclopedia material and be improved if needed. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Came here to see if this could use an NAC, but not yet, I suppose; so keep, per Ritchie333. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone above me - It's certainly a notable topic and I'd imagine there's tons of news sources & books if one digs deep enough, It does need improvement but as I said it's notable topic. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davey2010: It's not your job to imagine that there are sources, it's your job to find the sources. It's the sources that determine if a topic is notable, not your imagination. Now that we have your option, please offer some fact. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Walter Görlitz - I disagree .... I firmly believe it is my job to imagine sources are everywhere and I also believe my imagination does determine notability!.... (Yeah I was meant to have revisited this later and ended up forgetting..., Let me see what I can find!). –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. It's your job to prove the notability of the subject. Your belief and imagination are immaterial in a deletion debate. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. It goes into details. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expanded the article and greatly re-worked it. While it certainly could be developed more, and the last section is just a list, it is in a much better shape than it was before. It now deals with the "car song" as a style, with citations to reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Triveni veena

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

I can't find web sources for this product that are not somehow affiliated with the inventor. If offline sources exist, they should have been cited; for now, this doesn't seem to meet WP:NPRODUCT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Timbaland. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timbaland Thursday

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

Fails WP:N, is not sourced. If needed, list can easily be incorporated into Timbaland discography and does not need its own article. Soetermans. T / C 14:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At best and at worst, this looks like it would make a pretty good redirect to the Timbaland article or related, as this does appear to be an official website by Timbaland. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 23:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as this is conceivably not independent notable. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Lebedinsky

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

Only claim to notability seems to be being interviewed about his notable friend. This has been tagged for notability for 8 years, hopefully we can get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The article as it stands is definitely weaker than it could be, but does provide a second fairly clear claim to notability - as a leading member (in fact, chairman) of the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians (RAPM) for several years around 1930, and thus a person whose unfavourable opinion at that time could severely threaten or destroy the careers of Soviet musicians of the time (including, of course, Shostakovich). I might also mention (though I don't think that it has that much effect on his notability) that Lebedinsky seems, as well as giving interviews, to have written several articles about Shostakovich and his music. Turning to the GBooks hits - many are indeed just quoting Lebedinsky about Shostakovich. However, a significant number of other sources do also raise questions about Lebedinsky's veracity and the genuineness of his friendship with Shostakovich (this one, probably, in greatest detail). And quite a few, about a variety of composers, instead deal with his earlier RAPM activities - some, again, fairly briefly but others (such as this biography of Nikolai Myaskovsky) at greater length. (And please note that both the sources I have given refer to Lebedinsky in several different places - so searching within them is a good idea.) Perhaps a relatively minor character, but one with two separate claims to notability which, however, are perceived to interact rather oddly. PWilkinson (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: His entry in the Russian wiki has more details and sources. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of most Billboard Hot 100 Top 10 hits by artist

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

Just another indiscriminate collection of information. There's already List of artists by number of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles, so I don't think there's a need to add to the endless trivia of music chart facts in Wikipedia by taking it to top tens. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and this is just a repetition of already existing lists. Kansiime (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones or keep. Useful list, it's been mentioned in secondary sources , but it would fit in nicely with List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones as well. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, plus comment – I agree it's WP:IINFO. About merging it into List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones, that article is already pretty large as it is (even with our limiting a lot of the categories in that article to the top 10 artists, songs, producers, writers, etc.), so adding what is in this article will not improve anything, and it still would be WP:IINFO. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If its being mentioned in secondary sources it should be kept Atlantic306 (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kozaz records

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SECONDARY sources have discussed this record company. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and that's not surprising because it's unlikely this would've gotten the considerable sourcing which was needed for a better solid article. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep the article because all sources are real and you should search about it in Persian language to find more sources. As a PR for the company I am going to write the article in Russian and Persian languages during this month. Persiangreat (talk) 14:36, 14 Janaury 2016(UTC)

As public relations agent for the company, you have a conflict of interest. That is, you want to help the company prosper more than you want to help Wikipedia be relevant. Please read WP:COI for the guideline on the limited manner in which you may participate here. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*keep the article ] I help to Wikipedia as well because most of article are not exist about Russian and Persian or only are in Persian or Russian Language or even though only in English. Persiangreat (talk) 12:06, 19 Janaury 2016(UTC)

While you're welcome to add additional comments, you are only allowed to !vote once. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The recording label lacks the adequate notability both in English and Persian. Apart from the above mentioned conflict of interests of the comments from company's PR, its vocalist's page is subject to deletion as well. Arashtitan 15:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, because there may be sources in Persian (which I cannot read) that discuss the topic, but if they're not presented and we can't find them, they might as well not exist. Would be willing to change my position if a Persian-speaker can come up with something and vouch for their reliability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of classic rock songs

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

Nominating for User:Piriczki. Prod with "Propose deletion based on WP:DEL-REASON #6, #8 and #14. List is dubious and unverifiable, and appears to be the opinion of one anonymous IP editor." Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this deeper, this was a redirect for many years before being restored recently by an editor with no reason given. It should just be redirected with no reason to delete the title. I've done that and will Withdraw this nom. Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Since AfD nomination, the original unsourced list of songs was replaced by a sourced list on 24 Jan 2016. --Tsavage (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC) (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Classic" to whom? Also, a redirect to Classic rock doesn't make any sense, as there's no list there. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The nominator has removed the AfD template twice from the article, and has blanked and redirected it to Classic rock. The nominator also closed this discussion. Despite the fact that the nomination has been withdrawn, an outstanding delete !vote from another user is present in the discussion, so this cannot be closed as speedy keep. See WP:SKCRIT #1. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NorthAmerica's comment was made AFTER the close. The withdraw was BEFORE any other comments and well within policy., I just could not do the archive on my phone. NorthAmerica is welcome to nominate the redirect for deletion if they like. Legacypac (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WITHDRAWN. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a redirect to a well-developed article. It is a sign post to readers, and assists them in finding content. I agree that the nomination should be withdrawn. WP:SNOW. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you support leaving it as a redirect (as it was for 10 years, until about 2 weeks ago). Cause now the list of random songs a been restored. Legacypac (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Was a redirect" - There's no snow here either ... There's disruption I'll give you that, Let the AFD run it's course and lets all move on... –Davey2010^Talk 16:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep This seems to be a viable topic comparable with list of jazz standards or list of blues standards. Issues of status or subjectivity should, as usual, be resolved by reference to sources. These exist – for example, The Most Requested Classic Rock Songs; Classic Rock Stories: The Stories Behind the Greatest Songs of All Time; The Girl in the Song: The Real Stories Behind 50 Rock Classics – and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: Since there is some question: there are delete votes, and now that they exist, this will stay open, no matter whether the delete votes were registered before or after the attempted withdrawal. If the nominator doesn't want to delete it any more, they can strike (not remove, strike) their delete rationale and expand on it below. And since I'm sure an edit war is only moments away: might as well leave the list up until the conclusion of the AFD too, rather than redirect while discussion is going on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy with a delete or a redirect. The list is ponitlessLegacypac (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 7&6=thirteen and Andrew D. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and recreate it to a redirect, list is opinionated and worthless. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic. an useful list of songs. No need to be merged or deleted.BabbaQ (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated this list because it has no references and, as defined, is unverifiable and in its present form represents the questionable opinion of one anonymous editor. That is not to say that the article couldn't be improved, but I see few possibilities for that. Just to give everyone an idea of what they may be getting into with a list like this, Joel Whitburn's book Rock Tracks, which could be cited as a reliable source, has a section titled "Classic Rock Tracks" containing songs "played regularly on today's classic rock stations." It lists about 1,400 songs and only goes up to the year 1980 and there are thousands more charted songs from 1981 onward listed in the Mainstream Rock (chart) portion of the book. In this article, "Why Classic Rock Isn't What It Used to Be", the author monitored 25 classic rock radio stations for one week and identified 2,230 unique songs by 475 unique artists. That is potentially where this list is heading and I suspect the result will be an article that is unwieldy and unencyclopedic. Piriczki (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTESAL Notability guidelines apply to stand alone lists: [a list is] considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This list has no references or anything to back it up really--Savonneux (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Savonneux: Note that the article has been updated with sources, and sources are also provided below in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to classic rock (restore the redirect that existed for 10+ years). Classic rock is a radio format rather than a well-defined musical genre. It would make sense to have a list of classic rock radio stations, but a list of classic rock songs would suffer from indiscriminate selection criteria, since the definition is a moving target depending on each particular station. Songs themselves are not defined as "classic rock" (and Category:Classic rock songs doesn't exist); songs are pop rock or heavy metal or rock and roll or punk rock or alternative rock or blues rock or glam metal or arena rock (a few examples of some of the disparate genres that different classic rock radio stations are likely to play). Redirecting users looking for such a list to an article about the concept is most appropriate here, it's better than giving readers nothing at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meaningless list as it stands and 'Redirect to Classic rock as it was before. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ivanvector, who explains the topic and the problem with this list quite well, and why it differs from other classifications of songs. postdlf (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as list of songs - May seem to some, at first glance, to be an indiscriminate, unverfiable collection, but in fact it appears to be quite the opposite, and solidly supported by policies and guidelines.

meets notability per WP:LISTN (Standalone lists) with a clearly defined group topic, "Classic rock" (e.g. "Classic rock is a radio format which developed from the album-oriented rock (AOR) format in the early 1980s. In the United States, the classic rock format features music ranging generally from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, primarily focusing on commercially successful hard rock popularized in the 1970s.[1]" from Classic rock)

Numerous sources discuss the classic rock music genre/category - sources with significant coverage of classic rock radio specifically include: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]

comprising extremely popular, well-documented songs, can be reasonably expected to meet WP:CSC (Stand-alone lists > Common selection criteria) #1: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia"
verifiable from radio playlists, media tracking services, books, and other sources (web searches indicate numerous RS candidates)
passes the WP:LSC selection criteria test, When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself if the following are true:

If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?

while we already accept the concept of incomplete and dynamic lists, this is theoretically a finite set as there is a fixed number of rock songs from a specific time period that have been played on classic rock radio
Piriczki comments that sources exist with over 2,000 songs classified as classic rock, suggesting this list would be excessively long, however, number of items in a set has no bearing on whether the set is clearly defined and each member clearly belongs, which is the notability test of WP:LISTN, which this list passes. We have a List of minor planets with 455,144 numbered minor planets as of last Dec - list size alone is not an issue. The sources mentioned by Piriczki speak to general notability and verifiability via reliable sources.
Ivanvector argues for deletion with the assertion that "classic rock" is not a well-defined music genre, like pop rock or alternative rock, and is subject to indiscriminate selection criteria. In fact, as a music category, classic rock is measurable by radio play, and clearly defined in sources, and any variation among sources can be reconciled, to come to precise source-based selection criteria. There are no precise inclusion standards for music genres - e.g. is this alternative rock or pop rock, or both? - therefore, it would seem that the classic rock category is actually more easily defined from sources, based on time period and appearance on RS playlists.
Richhoncho argues for deletion with "Unreferenced and synthesised," citing (1) WP:RS and (2) WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. On the first point, I added a References section to the article (as a starter), using the two reliable sources mentioned by Piriczki, above - our sourcing policy, WP:V, suggests a presumption of unverifiability before deleting content, where clearly, every track can be reliably sourced, with normal discussion of which sources to use. On the second point, there is no original synthesis, no drawing of novel interpretations or conclusions: "classic rock" is well-recognized in at least hundreds of reliable sources, and it obviously represents a group of songs, so the only remaining issue appears to be selection criteria, which is addressed above at WP:CSC and WP:LSC.

Also note that one of the cited sources states:

"Classic rock stations do a massive amount of market research to understand who their listeners are and to figure out what songs to play" - according to Eric Wellman, classic rock brand manager for Clear Channel[28]

This speaks to the specificity of the group. _{added to original comment --Tsavage (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

I don't think we can override the wider consensus of core policy and guidelines, which this list apparently meets.

This list also seems quite useful, as an adjunct to the Classic rock article, for research into music history and radio formats, and for personal interest (nostalgic) browsing, the kind of thing that Wikipedia can, quite uniquely, do well. --Tsavage (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tsavage. I am not, and never have been denying the existence of "classic rock" and one of your references just proves that somebody is trying to sell a book which contains a reference to "Classick rock" and the other actually lists a top 25 of classic rock songs. Now, where, how and why do the 374 songs in this list come from other than from editor's opinions? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho I'm going by letter and spirit of policy, and not for argument's sake - opinions often appear to be expressed without fully considering the situation as we should, as I believe is the case here. Our core policy holds that editing is incremental, articles do not have to be immediately perfect, there is no rush, material should be presumed unverifiable before deleting, or else given a reasonable chance to be referenced, and we should look at things case by case.

In this case, who knows where the editor got the 374 songs, since no references were provided, but common sense examination (by those familiar with classic rock) tells us that they probably are all classic rock tracks per the definition in the lead, and they can probably be verified as such, from the sources provided, or from other sources which appear to be available. So you could go ahead and immediately delete every song that is not in one of the sources already there (in which case, WP:V suggests that you note in your edit summary that you believe verification is unlikely) OR, the article could be tagged to pinpoint any problems, discussion started in Talk regarding sourcing and citation style, and so forth, the normal improvement steps.

The bottom line is, the article does seem to squarely meet notability standards for a standalone list, and beyond even a minimum level, so we should not be deleting it. --Tsavage (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tsavage. See WP:FIVE which says WP is NOT a indiscriminate collection of information, a core guideline. This is a list of songs that might, from time to time, be played on radio stations that define themselves as "classic rock." What is there to love about this list even if we like most of the music listed? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in one of the sources for this article, what defines classic rock "changes depending on where you live." Different radio stations in different markets each have their own flavor, and when they are all combined together it produces a giant stew with no discernible taste. Looking at the list of 2,230 songs linked to in the article, it does have the appearance of an indiscriminate list. Based on my experiences with other lists in music related articles, I strongly suspect this article will become a battleground for editors debating what classic rock means in the first place as well as endless fan-based arguments over which songs to include or exclude. The article classic rock has already had a rash of vandalism in recent days, something I hoped to avoid by deleting what will likely become a highly contentious list. Piriczki (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho: WP:INDISCRIMINATE has already been explicitly addressed, and I don't believe you're applying it properly. It states: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." It provides examples of indiscriminate data, including entire software changelogs, reams of raw statistics, and so forth. Here, the context of the list members is a clearly defined group, "classic rock," a well-recognized radio format, with dedicated research and analysis, job titles, marketing campaigns, media coverage, and, of course, playlists. We cannot indiscriminately add songs to this list, songs must meet well-defined criteria that gives them a clear context. And if we found a list of all classic rock songs every playlisted, that also would not be indiscriminate, it would be all members of a clearly defined group that discriminates between those songs and all other songs with similar release dates, sales, popularity, and so forth.

Piriczki: "'changes depending on where you live'"' is not equivalent to "indiscriminate." Regional preferences form subsets of a larger whole. We wouldn't find a List of jazz standards indiscriminate because preferences for individual members of those lists vary by region, or by individual person. And the classic rock regional variations do not represent largely different song selections, they're more about frequency of play - there is a core set of classic rock songs, preferences among those may vary by region. We're concerned with the complete list.

As for the battleground concern, as previously addressed, future editing environment does not seem like a solid, policy-based reason for deleting an article. The practical concern can and should be dealt with by discussion, not deletion. In practical terms, based on sources, the inclusion period can be limited - 1960s-1980s or whatever - and clearly stated in the lead (as is the case now), that addresses what seems to be the main potentially contentious issue. This article provides a quite in-depth, up-to-date and authoritative examination of the classic rock format that can be used for focusing the list: "Classic Rock Radio at 30: The Songs Change, So Does the Vibe Remain the Same?" - Billboard, 14 Dec 2015. --Tsavage (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good analysis, but I disagree with a few of your points. In particular I think the Clear Channel quote you added is the best indicator for this group's lack of specificity - the definition changes based on the station's listening market, geographic area, marketing intent, and simply day-to-day as different people listen. The problem is not that the list is too large (it would be quite large) but that the bounds of the list are undefinable. There's no common musical element in these songs (I guess they all feature guitars, oh wait, Eleanor Rigby) other than that they have at some time been played on a classic rock radio station. For other musical genres, our standard generally is reference in reliable sources, for example we list Smoke on the Water as hard rock and heavy metal because of reliable sources which have said that. But "classic rock" is a marketing label, and we should consider the stations non-independent for this purpose, so this leaves us without a consistent way to identify and group classic rock songs.

In preparing this comment, I found only one song (Tom Sawyer) which has any reference to classic rock in its article at all, not as a style or genre but as a mention that it is commonly played on classic rock stations. That's as close as we would be able to come up with for an inclusion standard for this list, and it would be open to a lot of creative interpretation, which is the sort of thing Wikipedia shouldn't do at all.

That might not be much of an issue for many topic areas here, but warring over music genres is probably one of this project's most persistent issues, to the point that genre warriors have their own WikiFauna essay. The list was originally redirected because someone objected to James Taylor being included on it, although by our definition here many of his songs would clearly qualify. But what independent reliable source do we have to back that up? That's what I mean by undefinable and indiscriminate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector: I fully understand your argument, and I might guess that, beyond the explicit point, there is also an underlying, for-the-greater-good reasoning (the latter perhaps hinted at by your reference to POV pushing), but I will only reply to the explicit one, that an inclusion standard for classic rock is practically undefinable.

The well-supported facts are simple and straightforward (assuming a radio format/radio play-related standard):

1. Classic rock exists as a well-discussed definition and concept, and it follows that some subset of all songs are considered classic rock.

2. There are multiple reliable sources that list classic rock songs.

So we have a clearly defined group, and we have reliable sources, and that is all that Wikipedia requires for a standalone list; in fact, to remain neutral, we can't normally override that.

Comparison with musical genres is not necessary, but it's natural. In fact, there are endless genres and subgenres, and no objective way of determining what fits where (except if we get into some sort of song-recognition, spectrum analysis type of thing); at least in contemporary popular music, placing genre tags is largely subjective, based on opinion (which is at times conflicting, especially at the edges), which makes adequate sourcing a potential issue.

With classic rock, given even the most inclusive parameters, like, the playlist of every radio station identified as classic rock, all decades, all other sources, combined, it is still a strictly defined group: a song either appears on a qualifying list, or it doesn't. It is up to us to settle on working limits for inclusion. If a dispute breaks out over whether to include the 1980s, ultimately we can have a "List of classic rock songs (1960 to 1980)" or whatever. This is our process, often unruly, but it is what our widest consensus via policy tells us to do, and, well-done, it seems to work out. --Tsavage (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I posted here about this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced and synthesised. How anybody could suggest it is useful, I have no idea. Which classic stations? According to who? Why aren't all the songs "rock songs?" With no references there is nothing to save. It fails on WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. If somebody wants to take this to draft and work on it, by all means do, but as it stands, I repeat, delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not trying to muddy the waters but if the article is kept and not as a redirect, I have drafted a possible alternative to the current article which I think most agree needs improvement. It still requires massive expansion and I'm not sure about the sources but it's the best I could come up with. I'm still in favor of delete though. User:Piriczki/sandbox/List of classic rock songs Piriczki (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft and highly subjective. The listings also aren't based on any credible sources as Richhoncho notes, and even if they were, "notable classic rock songs" is puffery that is not based on any definitive or objective criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete – WP:Source list includes:

When an item meets the requirements of the Verifiability policy, people reading or editing the list can check an item's reference to see that the information comes from a reliable source... Even if you're sure that an item is relevant to the list's topic, you must find a good source that verifies this knowledge before you add it to the list (although you can suggest it on the talk page), and add that source in a reference next to the item.(emphasis added)

Each item on List of blues standards and the lists of jazz standards by decade (WP: Featured lists – List of 1920s jazz standards, etc.) has a citation to a reliable source. The same should apply here. BTW, I have never heard the listed Elvis songs (from the 1950s) on classic rock radio ("oldies" stations, yes, but are there any left?). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Due to the excessive number of disambiguation links, which are likely to disrupt the regular work of disambiguators, this article has been moved to the draft namespace until such time as all disambiguation links are fixed. This should not prevent a determination, however, of whether this article should be deleted for other reasons. bd2412 T 20:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- The disambiguation links having been resolved, the article has been restored to article space. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ARTICLE UPDATED: The list of songs has been completely revised, and each song cited to the Hickey source. A note about what's there now is posted on Talk:List of classic rock songs. --Tsavage (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:LISTN. Sources include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10]. The overall topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hickey, Walt (7 Jul 2014). "Why Classic Rock Isn't What It Used To Be". FiveThirtyEight (ESPN Internet Ventures). "To see what the current state of classic rock in the United States looks like, I monitored 25 classic rock radio stations1 operating in 30 of the country’s largest metropolitan areas for a week in June.2 The result, after some substantial data cleaning, was a list of 2,230 unique songs by 475 unique artists, with a total record of 37,665 coded song plays across the stations." 2,230 song list (WebCite archive)
^ Whitburn, Joel (2002). Joel Whitburn's Rock Tracks: Mainstream Rock 1981-2002 : Modern Rock, 1988-2002 : Bonus Section! Classic Rock Tracks, 1964-1980. Record Research. ISBN 0898201535.
^ Heatley, M.; Hopkinson, F. (2014). The Girl in the Song: The Real Stories Behind 50 Rock Classics. EBL-Schweitzer. Pavilion Books. ISBN 978-1-909396-88-3. Retrieved January 25, 2016.
^ Leonard, H. (2013). 25 Top Classic Rock Songs. Hal Leonard Corporation. ISBN 978-1-4803-4059-6.
^ Morse, T. (1998). Classic Rock Stories: The Stories Behind the Greatest Songs of All Time. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-4299-3750-4.
^ Staff, Hal Leonard Corporation; Corporation, Hal Leonard Publishing (2002). The Best Classic Rock Songs Ever: 63 Legendary Hits. Best Ever Series. Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-0-634-03648-4.
^ Caldwell, Christina (September 14, 2015). "10 Classic Rock Songs that Would Still Be Hits Today". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved January 25, 2016.
^ McPadden, Mike (July 27, 2015). "Rock's Dirty Mouth Dozen: 13 Classic Songs Allowed To Swear On The Radio". VH1. Retrieved January 25, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help)
^ McPadden, Mike (August 11, 2015). "Decoding 8 Classic Songs With Lyrics That Have Baffled Fans For Decades". VH1 News. Retrieved January 25, 2016.
^ "7 Miley Cyrus Covers Of Classic Rock Songs That The Pop Star Tackled With Aplomb". Bustle. Retrieved January 25, 2016.

Comment – There are serious referencing problems here. This list is cherry picked from Hickey and may be a copyright violation, since it is merely a partial regurgitation of one man's work. The rest of the references mention 50, 25, 63, 10, 13, 8, and 7 songs and do not support the hundreds listed. WP articles based on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll and various "Greatest" lists by Rolling Stone have all been deleted as copyright violations. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: Thanks for being thorough!

1. ...cherry picked ... partial regurgitation - This is a subset of songs, taken from a source list, for use in an article list: that's no more cherry picking or regurgitation than selecting any subset of material from any source, i.e. as a non-specific statement, it is clearly neither of those things.

According to WP:LEADFORALIST,

The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.

The lead does not specify that the list is only a subset of classic rock songs nor what criteria is used for inclusion. Without this, it appears to be a random selection or original research. ("A Saturday Club Xmas/Crimble Medley" - The Beatles (1963) is classic rock radio song?)

The lead clearly describes exactly what the list presents: songs played on classic rock radio, released in a specific time period. No tracks were removed that are in the source in that time period. The Beatles track is an interesting inclusion example, but that's not relevant here, as it is sourced and within the time period (and it would be OR to exclude that track only because we feel it doesn't fit, without source-based reason - if you want to discuss that Beatles example: Talk:List of classic rock songs). --Tsavage (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. The rest of the references mention 50, 25, 63, 10, 13, 8, and 7 songs and do not support the hundreds listed Sources discuss various specific aspects of a subject, in varying depth. We know that classic rock radio plays more than 50 or so different songs; the Hickey source gives us a more comprehensive set.

So, the remainder of the references are not really used and Hickey is the only source for the vast majority of the items (he is the only one cited for the items).

Yes, Hickey appears to be a definitively reliable source for these songs, what more do we need? There are additional sources listed, and over time, they can be cross-checked, tracks can be added, existing tracks can be additionally cited - by policy, articles are not expected to be immediately perfect, improvement is incremental, there is no rush. --Tsavage (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll and various "Greatest" lists by Rolling Stone have all been deleted as copyright violations Hickey is raw data aggregating radio play, there is no interpretation, no IP value added by the author. Furthermore, what it is and open access to it is made explicit in the article, and the data, along with the monitoring software, is under an all-use (MIT) open source license, published and freely available at GitHub. There is no apparent copyvio here. --Tsavage (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hickey states "The result [after his monitoring], after some substantial data cleaning, was a list of ..." (emphasis added). At the bottom of the linked GitHub page, it clearly shows "© 2016 GitHub, Inc."[29] If an editor created a "List of the songs the shaped rock and roll" and used half of the songs from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's "500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll" with the R&R HOF as the sole source, it would be deleted in a heartbeat. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Data cleaning refers to removing cruft, like gibberish characters, not to editing. GitHub hosts millions of individual software developer repositories, the GitHub copyright applies to the site, not them; the Hickey open source license is in a so-named file in that repository. So, no, it is not copvio, and no, it is not a creative work, it is an unedited multiple station radio playlist for a set period, and using only parts of it is fine. --Tsavage (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment All of them referenced to a list that includes but is not limited to every single charting single by Metallica, Rush, The Beatles all the way up to Radioactive by Imagine Dragons which came out... 3 years ago? So essentially... every single charting song in the last 40 years.--Savonneux (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's been a problem throughout this discussion of keep !voters equivocating classic rock songs with classic rock songs... postdlf (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf:: I believe I understand the distinction you're making, between the specific classic rock radio/media format, and the general idea of "classic" anything, classic cars, classic horror movies, and so forth - could you explain how that applies here? --Tsavage (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. Many of the sources being cited above as evidence of coverage of these songs as a group are actually about the second kind that are using the term "classic" as an evaluative adjective, and the keep !voters are failing to distinguish between those and sources that are about songs played on classic rock format radio stations. That's also true of at least one delete !voter above (the rhetorical question "'Classic' to whom?" clearly indicates they're addressing the evaluative sense of the term classic). This confusion has rendered much of this discussion meaningless as applied to this list. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf:: Thanks. Opinion vs format is literally valid, however, the list's radio format definition simply serves to source a reasonably representative number of songs on a List of classic rock songs, it doesn't establish a different type of classic rock. The sources presented here are consistent with our WP:LISTN notability requirement, ...discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, because all of the sources are referring to the same group of songs with the common label, "classic rock". What can differ is a source's basis for inclusion, commonly, author's authoritative opinion, author's synthesis of the opinion of certain others (e.g. music critics and scholars), or chart/playlist/market research data (surveys of public opinion), and from which time period, 1960s-70s, -80s, -90s, -00s?

Sorting through reliable sources and adjusting definitions and inclusion criteria are separate concerns, what is relevant here is that in all cases, it is the same group of "classic rock" songs, based on a categorization of music by specific musical sensibilities, refined by timeframe, enduring popularity, and broad rock genre classification, which is well-discussed as such in many independent, reliable sources, and reflected by classic rock radio.

This is all a great basis for ongoing discussion to develop the article and list. As for AfD, all of the comments and sources are referring to the same classic rock category, and the LISTN argument appears to be squarely on-point. --Tsavage (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can a song release d 3 years ago be 'classic'? Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE UPDATED (2): Added citations to songs from an additional source. --Tsavage (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE UPDATED (3): Expanded lead to provide context for the song period (1960s-1980s) and address newer "classic" tracks. --Tsavage (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE UPDATED (4): Post-1989 songs have been removed (there may be a couple of strays), the list now conforms to the lead with songs released in the 1960s-1980s (release year 1960-1989). --Tsavage (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE - okay, a list of songs with reliable sources is acceptable to a point but a 154K page is just taking things too far. May I suggest creating Category:Classic rock songs instead? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Long pages can always be divided, as per WP:SPLIT. In this instance, page splits could be performed alphabetically for some entries. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a category is the way to go, though - that can accommodate hundreds of entries. My concern is that I'm sure if we gathered up every song that a reliable source classed as "classic rock", the server would choke on the page size. Best to nip the problem in the bud, I think. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Thanks for the reply. The problem with a category-only situation is that it could be deleted, because people may assume that the category is arbitrary or subjective despite the content in the article being backed with reliable sources. Category pages cannot be sourced. Also, since the page can be split, it's size is not particularly a "problem" in my view. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333: The list is not likely to get significantly larger. It is based on a recent, one week radio play log of 25 CR stations representatively spread across the US (some 37,000 unique song plays), which should include the vast majority of CR songs. For example, a second source for around 60 songs, included no new additions to the list. --Tsavage (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on context: Relevant to sources and inclusion standards, at the related Talk: Classic rock, there has been a recurring push since 2007 to cover the subject as both a radio format and a broad style of music, which so far has not been done.

It is hard to argue that "classic rock" is no more than a "radio format," when, for example, we define the diverse, period-based Alternative rock as a genre of rock music and a broad umbrella term consisting of music that differs greatly in terms of its sound, its social context, and its regional roots.

The term "classic rock" is unarguably a distinct category/genre of music,[30] reflected by classic rock radio, but not exclusively defined by it - ALL references to classic rock are considering the same set of music for the same, ultimately esthetic reasons. (The main article should reflect this.) --Tsavage (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Classic Rock" is NOT a genre of music. It is/was a marketing term used by radio stations to sell themselves. Until, probably, the 70s "genre" meant the arrangement of the song, ie Jazz, blues, Rock n Roll, easy listening, reggae and all but the tone-deaf could hear a piece of music and know what style or genre it was in. Now "genre" is used as a marketing term. Therefore there may be no musical connection between the songs (Do American Pie and Brown Sugar have any musical connection?) on the list other than they will possibly appear on a classic rock radio station. There is a reasonable article at Classic rock and probably could by expanded by a few of the names of the bands regularly played on such formats, but a blow by blow list of songs which have no musical connection? I have already voted delete, but would be happy if it returned to a redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not suggesting the notion of a music genre called "classic rock" should be incorporated into an article about a radio format. Although related, those are two different subjects requiring two different articles, see progressive rock (radio format) and progressive rock (music genre) or modern rock (radio format) and alternative rock (music genre). Piriczki (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a discussion for Talk: Classic rock, and I will participate there. Here, I mention this aspect to make clear (as sourced) that there are not two in-any-way-different types of classic rock, and all sources discussing the mainstream notion of classic rock are talking about exactly the same thing (specifically re the LISTN notability requirement). --Tsavage (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention this here, though, it should be noted for the discussion, that the Progressive rock (radio format) article refers to a defunct 1960s-1970s format, and modern rock as a descriptor appears to be in good measure supported by Billboard having created a proprietary Modern Rock chart (now called Alternative Songs) that included mainly alternative rock (as a cited New York Times article noted, the "so-called modern format"). With classic rock, the situation is different: radio format, genre, body of music, and enduring popularity all co-evolved and co-exist under one popular term, classic rock. --Tsavage (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Classic rock" is not a genre of music per se — it's a radio positioning format which just means "any rock song at all that's more than ten years old", and beyond that fact it's commercial popularity, not any discernible unity of genre aesthetics, that determine what gets played more and what gets played less or not at all. (For example, you'll hear The Beatles and The Rolling Stones on a classic rock station a lot more often than you'll hear The Velvet Underground — but trust me on this because I've seen it happen for myself, you will occasionally hear VU too.) So to really approach completeness, this list would already have to include every single rock song ever recorded between 1950 and 2006. Next year we'd have to start adding rock songs recorded in 2007, songs recorded in 2008 the year after that, and on and so forth. And I see a lot of things here that spark debate: we're counting Eurythmics' "Sweet Dreams" but not the way more rock-oriented "Would I Lie to You" or "Missionary Man"? Soft Cell's "Tainted Love", but nothing by the much more clearly rock-influenced Depeche Mode? Bob Marley, but not B. B. King or any ska band that I can identify? Underground-era R.E.M. but none of their 1990s chart hits? Only "Fire Woman" by The Cult, when I could name you at least three of their other songs that get as much or more classic rock radio airplay than that? Nothing by The Cure? Nirvana (and only "About a Girl" at that, which, er, no), but no Pearl Jam or Soundgarden? Then there's all the Canadian bands I'd have to add based on Canadian classic rock airplay even though they're unknown and unplayed in the US — and 180 other countries in the world that could do the exact same thing. Ergo, too much subjectivity and too massive a topic to be maintainable. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I heard one of the classic rock stations near me playing Age of Electric over the weekend. I mean, I guess they fit this definition. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat:: I hear what you're saying about how the inclusion standard might seem to be ridiculously broad, such that it encompasses EVERYTHING, however, that would only be a problem if editors could add their own personal picks. In fact, each song has to be sourced. The current inclusion standard uses radio play and a 1960-1989 release date. Since classic rock radio is highly motivated (by economics) to play every last track that fits the general style/sensibility, we can assume that a comprehensive classic rock radio playlist is also comprehensive for the genre. That's what we're dealing with here at AfD: well-discussed subject (LISTN), and a well-sourced, comprehensive list, with well-defined inclusion criteria. --Tsavage (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does "classic rock" end in 1989? Somebody should maybe tell that to the classic rock station in my city, which has verifiably played Finger Eleven, Nirvana (more than once, and neither one "About a Girl"), Green Day, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, post-1989 Guns 'n Roses, Blind Melon, Stone Temple Pilots, Metallica, Our Lady Peace and The Headstones just within the past eight hours. And if I go back to yesterday's playlist, I can push you right to the edge of the 2000s: Tal Bachman's "She's So High", The Tragically Hip's "Poets", The Wallflowers' cover of "Heroes", Foo Fighters' "Learn to Fly". I wish classic rock ended in 1989, so I wouldn't have to feel bloody old every time I hear a classic rock station play a song that came out when I was already in university, but unfortunately for my middle-aged bones it doesn't end in 1989. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice manifesto! :) Still, neither the genre nor the list are actually chaotic and indiscriminate in the way you make out. The original classic rock set is popular songs from the 1960s and 70s, that fit a certain hard rock sensibility. Radio didn't make up the genre, radio just played it for folks who didn't like the 80s. Time went by and new songs were added. The new additions are only there because enough classic rock listeners accept them into the fold. The core songs remain the same, the endless staple rotation of Led Zeppelin and Eagles is still what defines it - after around 1980, the cutoff dates are arbitrary. For context, one academic describes Pearl Jam as combining "elements of punk, classic rock, and blues." It all does make perfect sense! --Tsavage (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classic rock is a radio format and a category/genre - This is supported in sources. Wikipedia music categorization of genres is by cultural definition, not a particular, strict academic definition, and in the same way we classify Alternative rock as a genre, classic rock is a genre.

Classic rock refers to a canon of albums and singles, usually produced through the mid-1960s through to the late 1970s. These provided the playlist for a radio format, became a loosely defined genre, and, more recently, a general marketing category. Popular Music Culture: The Key Concepts (Routlege; 2012)

...'rock' is deployed as an umbrella term covering a range of popular music genres and styles, including 'classic rock', 'progressive rock', 'alternative rock', 'rock 'n' roll' and 'psychedelic rock.' - Ageing and Youth Cultures: Music, Style and Identity (A&C Black, 2013)

We can argue over what is or isn't a genre, but for content, we should rely on sources, not personal opinion. Besides, common sense tells us that (if you're familiar with the term and the music), you don't think only or mainly of radio when you hear someone say "classic rock," you think of a general style of music - if we hear a song, we can tell whether it might be considered "classic rock," in the same way we would categorize music as alternative, or prog rock, or grindcore, or acid house...it is a category of music, and a genre is a category is a genre. --Tsavage (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a marketing category, applied only after a song is at least ten years old, to music that doesn't necessarily have any overriding cultural or stylistic similarity besides the word "old". A genre is the category that a song is created in and belongs to when it's new and current, not a label that gets retroactively applied ten years after the fact as an age marker — "classic rock" is no more a genre, per se, than "retro" is. Unless maybe you've got some amazing new insight, which has never occurred to anybody else in human history, about what common musical aesthetic besides "songs that were popular 20 or 30 or 40 years ago", could possibly be deemed to unify James Taylor with Nirvana, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young with Eurythmics or ZZ Top with R.E.M.. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrary date cutoff makes this a radio format more than a genre. For example: Classical music as a genre isn't delimited by dates as much as by its compositional nature. Most of the song's listed here already belong to genres, picking a random one here: Animal - Def Leppard is already rightly defined as Glam metal. This is just an arbitrary list of songs-played-on-the-radio-in-the-united-states-in-the-2010s-as-classic-rock. Which is a far more fitting name for this list. There are bands now which fit the description of "mid 1970s hard rock" which will never be on the list as currently defined simply because of it's arbitrary nature (Witchcraft and The Sword come to mind).--Savonneux (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic still passses WP:LISTN and the page can still be WP:SPLIT per size concerns. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Badlands Tour

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

Use a primary source (the artist's website); not covered by the media - so it will stay unreferenced, lack of relevancy. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though the page does not currently have adequate relaible sources for verification, it is still covered in the news. The page needs some work but I don't see any reason to delete it. Seems pretty notable. Meatsgains (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains I'm struggling to find a reliable/known source through those news. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the tour isn't covered in sources such as CNN, BBC, or The Times, but there are certainly known sources out there: [31], [32], [33], and [34]. Meatsgains (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the second is the main subject. The other ones is a "and by the way, she is.." Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through and hand picked a few of the sources that were reliable. I'm sure there are others covering the tour in greater detail. Meatsgains (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio CTK-691

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. Just a list of specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge along with various other Casio keyboard models into List of Casio models or something along those lines.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Privia

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

No indication of notability, just specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Wikipedia is comprehensive. "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." The article on this widely used instrument needs further sourcing and references from reliable sources for its notability, but so does almost every other article on electric and electronic keyboard instruments – as do many hundreds of other articles which are not challenged; random example: Category:Railway stations. (Yes, I'm aware of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but it should be noted that even that essay allows for consistency within a subject, for comprehensiveness, and for inherent notability.) Lastly, it may be instructive to consider that this AfD was one of about 16 for Casio products the nominator submitted today. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio CTK 230

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

No indication of notability, just specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio AZ-1

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

Unsourced, just specifications, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't think we have so many Casio keytars that we can start merging them, but we should cover them somehow. 108.171.128.174 (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Music Proposed deletions

[1] Hickey, Walt (7 Jul 2014). "Why Classic Rock Isn't What It Used To Be". FiveThirtyEight (ESPN Internet Ventures). "To see what the current state of classic rock in the United States looks like, I monitored 25 classic rock radio stations1 operating in 30 of the country’s largest metropolitan areas for a week in June.2 The result, after some substantial data cleaning, was a list of 2,230 unique songs by 475 unique artists, with a total record of 37,665 coded song plays across the stations." 2,230 song list (WebCite archive)

[rocktracks-2] Whitburn, Joel (2002). Joel Whitburn's Rock Tracks: Mainstream Rock 1981-2002 : Modern Rock, 1988-2002 : Bonus Section! Classic Rock Tracks, 1964-1980. Record Research. ISBN 0898201535.

[Heatley_Hopkinson_2014-3] Heatley, M.; Hopkinson, F. (2014). The Girl in the Song: The Real Stories Behind 50 Rock Classics. EBL-Schweitzer. Pavilion Books. ISBN 978-1-909396-88-3. Retrieved January 25, 2016.

[4] Leonard, H. (2013). 25 Top Classic Rock Songs. Hal Leonard Corporation. ISBN 978-1-4803-4059-6.

[Morse_1998-5] Morse, T. (1998). Classic Rock Stories: The Stories Behind the Greatest Songs of All Time. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-4299-3750-4.

[Staff_Corporation_2002-6] Staff, Hal Leonard Corporation; Corporation, Hal Leonard Publishing (2002). The Best Classic Rock Songs Ever: 63 Legendary Hits. Best Ever Series. Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-0-634-03648-4.

[Caldwell_2015-7] Caldwell, Christina (September 14, 2015). "10 Classic Rock Songs that Would Still Be Hits Today". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved January 25, 2016.

[McPadden_2015-8] McPadden, Mike (July 27, 2015). "Rock's Dirty Mouth Dozen: 13 Classic Songs Allowed To Swear On The Radio". VH1. Retrieved January 25, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help)

[9] McPadden, Mike (August 11, 2015). "Decoding 8 Classic Songs With Lyrics That Have Baffled Fans For Decades". VH1 News. Retrieved January 25, 2016.

[10] "7 Miley Cyrus Covers Of Classic Rock Songs That The Pop Star Tackled With Aplomb". Bustle. Retrieved January 25, 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]