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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor 314ce

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Basically just an ordinary guitar, with no claim to notability and no need for its own article. The article has been tagged for failing notability and for reading like an advertisement since 2013. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Colonel Wilhelm Klink is spot on. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. We have a page about the company, and this ordinary guitar in no way merits its own page. Edwardx (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- 1/3 of the article is a promotion, and no secondary sources to confer notability, so delete. In veritas (talk) 16:07, 7 April 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Music Competition

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

Given that this junior competition does not yet have any winners who are notable enough for a WP article, I do not see how it is likely to be notable itself. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I researched the matter a bit and found out that they have renamed themselves as San Jose International Piano Competition. For some reason the regular editors of this article stopped editing it around 2010, probably around the time the renaming took place. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches are finding nothing better and the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only coverage I see is trivial mentions of local winners. I'm not really seeing substantial coverage of the competition itself with which to make a page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:09, 16 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunday Guitar School

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

A school in India, no third-party references. Originally speedily deleted, but schools are specifically excluded from the WP:CSD#A7 criterion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Music1201 (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 12:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if this type of specialist school counts as an educational institution for the purposes of A7. Adam9007 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing convincing for notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found nothing about this online or anywhere else Rubenstein.mark (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I can find nothing beyond FB and local listings. Not even locally notable. Edwardx (talk) 14:41, 1 April 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. Fails WP:GNG as the coverage listed is insufficient to establish notability. Katie^talk 23:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myles William

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

Non-notable record producer. References are all just links to song credits or articles listing song credits. Some refs don't mention article subject at all. Article is mostly just a list of known artists who worked with article subject once -- | Uncle Milty | talk | 03:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Uncle Milty - He has had a song on the number 1 album in germany, His Yuna lullabies remix was in national radio rotation on SirusXM for over a year, He scored a song in the movie "The Other Woman" starring Cameron Diaz which was a box office number 1, has had songs released on at least 2 major record labels { Lil Wayne/Republic Records and Estelle/BMG} and every reference mentions him). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.92.129 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2016‎
1. What song did he write and/or perform that was on what #1 album in Germany?

2. Odd that it appears that the Adventure Club remix looks to be so much more popular.

3. "Scored"? No. From what I can find he provided "additional production" to one song on that soundtrack. "Scored" would mean he composed/arranged it. He didn't.

4. Artists he worked for "had songs released on at least 2 major record labels". That could be notable, if he personally received some high-profile accolades for it.

5. The Wikipedia articles you've included as references don't mention him. The other mentions of him are just that, mentions. It takes more than a mere credit listing as producer to achieve notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

1: The subject did have a number 1 album for "Cemesis" in Germany producing the single "SINTFLUT" for Summer Cem which was released under Warner/Chappell. https://www.offiziellecharts.de/album-details-293591
Proof of credit: http://genius.com/Summer-cem-sintflut-lyrics

2: The subject did, in fact, have his "Lullabies" remix in rotation on Sirius XM Chill which is syndicated worldwide. https://twitter.com/siriusxmchill/status/429412137669505024
Here's a picture with further proof: https://twitter.com/thefuturemoguls/status/635638582326239232
Reporting statistics show that he's averaging 15 spins/week on Sirius alone: http://dogstarradio.com/search_playlist.php?artist=myles+william&title=&channel=&month=&date=&shour=&sampm=&stz=&ehour=&eampm=&tdate=201612 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snacklord (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3: Per Wikipedia's criteria for a work that is notable there is no mention of the criteria for "scored" only "performed", which the subject had a role in the creation.

4: The accolade was that the subject was a part of an album that debuted on the Billboard R&B chart at #14. http://imallyuk.com/us-charts-nicki-minajs-truffle-butter-certified-top-20-hit-on-billboard-hot-100/

5: Without producers there would be no lyrics in music, publishing on records is split 50/50. 50% goes to the songwriter and 50% is received by producer. My point in that statement is that it's deeper than a mere credit listing.

Based on these facts the subject meets multiple areas within Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --Snacklord (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and Draft if needed as the current article is still questionable so unless better coverage can actually be found, the current article is still questionable for keeping. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News Source* From the State Press of Arizona State University. http://www.statepress.com/article/2016/04/asu-hip-hop-producer-myles-william — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.189.146.117 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on past outcomes, music producers are rarely notable. I don't see how this guy is any different from being just one of many producers. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1: The subject does meet the criteria that wikipedia declares "notable". He actually meets almost all of them, not just one or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.189.146.117 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG, searches turned up no in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:21, 12 April 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. —SpacemanSpiff 17:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhbir Singh Lakkha

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

Non notable musician unsupported by any third party, reliable sources. Ciridae (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ciridae (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ciridae (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found several links at Books, News and WP:INDAFD but simply nothing to suggest considerable improvements, it's simply expected coverage. Delete at best for now, SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable musician. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:20, 8 April 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) 23:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Assassins

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ciridae (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ciridae (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article does not meeting either WP:N or WP:V, has no reliable sources and is possibly written (entirely) by a band member (WP:COI). Ciridae (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article was previously nominated for speedy deletion but the tag was reverted by Appable. Ciridae (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better, nothing else convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 25 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KKBOX

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

No evidence of notability. Most refs are own refs and one is a 404. One appears to be about copyright infringement and the other a press release. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Velella. KKBOX is is widely used in East and Southeast Asia. It is one of the most popular music streaming platform in Asia. Although it may not popular worldwide, it certainly have the ability to compete or even prevail over other big companies like Spotify or Tidel in the Asian market. As the music streaming market in Asia is still growing, the service of KKBOX should not be ignore. So this topic still have its notability. Regarding the problem of referencing, could you please indicate the unsuitable ones as a reference for us to improve our article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyhihi123 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is one of the most popular music platforms in Asia. Just linked the Chinese & Japanese articles. The references may be unsatisfactory, but notability is by no means a problem. Timmyshin (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG through multiple in-depth Taiwanese reliable sources, e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]. SST flyer 02:10, 31 March 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. czar 08:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bounded Vision

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

~~Fails WP:COMPANY as there are no reliable sources. Greek Legend (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and planned to nominate since of this currently satisfies the notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time, per the nomination being struck as being from a confirmed sock puppet. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:03, 15 April 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 01:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Little Birds tour

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

Upcoming concert tour with no indication of notability. WP:NCONCERT specifies that "Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." But all that's here is one source establishing that the tour is happening, a list of the venues, and no indication whatsoever of any notability "in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms". Redirect to Garbage (band), without prejudice against recreation at a later date if and when something genuinely substantive and notable can be written about it. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request can now be closed as new sources that indicate notability have been provided. The article is now in no worse shape than for example Pearl Jam 2016 North America Tour, The Offspring World Tour 2016, Queen + Adam Lambert 2016 Summer Festival Tour, The Formation World Tour, América Latina Olé Tour 2016, Hits 2016 (Rod Stewart tour) etc.--Garbidz (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Garbidz is the original author of the article crh23 (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 30 March 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minhaj Shifat

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

Article has lack of significance. Could not find any news related to him in google. Thus article has not pass WP:MUSBIO. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bd24live article is a decent start, but gonomanusherawaj seems to be just an edited-down rehash of it. Searches of the usual types, including by Bengali script name, found brief mentions in the Bengali press, but nothing as substantive as the bd24live piece. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 7 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy-i

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

No secondary sources or potential redirect targets. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) This would be a candidate for PROD, but it already had an underpopulated AfD so hopefully this can go faster. czar 05:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 05:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 05:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found some sources with passing mentions. Unsure of it's notability though.--TheDomain (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would describe those four as passing mentions and a (non-independent) media partnership, not significant coverage. czar 16:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is simply questionable for any applicable notability thus delete for now at best. Notifying 1st AfDer Happysquirrel. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No more signs of notability than last time. All bare mentions or non-independent sources. I honestly should have just PRODed it last time, given that no one even showed up for the first AfD. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:34, 30 March 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. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SonicScoop

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a music reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 05:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 05:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 05:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no considerably minimal signs of better satisfying the applicable notability, nothing else convincing for this troubled article. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Website article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Refs provided are an incidental mention and a non-RS corp site. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:17, 1 April 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) 19:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Henderson (musician)

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

Google turns up very little independent coverage, and no sources are given in the article other than a link to his facebook page and some course listings. Criteria given in WP:MUSICBIO don't apply to the listed gold albums as he was a producer, not a musician or composer. Also seems rather promotional. —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 02:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:G12 as the article appears to have originally been copy-pasted from [5] by what appears to be an associated band-member, and a lack of available sources do not allow the article to be rescued, so WP:TNT. Awards for records/albums would count towards ANYBIO#1, and if there were RS available to meet the claims, then he might be shown to meet GNG as a producer. A search for "ไซม่อน แฮนเดอร์สัน" (his transliteration) doesn't show much. He's not in the Thai Silly Fools article. He was a judge for SUTASI, but was that competition actually broadcast anywhere and/or significantly covered? The "Briony" (Briohny - th:ไบรโอนี่ - jp:ブライオニー) album referred to appears to be this, but his role is unconfirmed. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches simply found nothing better convincing, only a few links. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 29 March 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 11:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tzaneen rap

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

Google shows no evidence of the existence of this form of rap, so it appears to fail WP:Verifiability before we can even get to WP:Notability. The few hits that Google returns are wikis and mirrors of this article. The article cites no sources to help us. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet any signs of an acceptable Wikipedia article. Searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources. WP:GNG fail. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 9 April 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 consensus is that there is insufficient reliable, independent sourcing which could show that this record label meets the notability criteria at this time. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Garden Records

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had nothing but passing mentions in my music reliable sources custom Google search. I see no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references or sources provided. The handful of notable associated acts that are linked to the page seem to have gained their notability regardless of an association with Paper Garden Records. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note in light of the article's recent cleanup that primary and unreliable sources aren't going to help at AfD, so it might be better to discuss the potential of the sources here before spending the time integrating them into the article. czar 06:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Upon my recent research in the last day, I have found that the label has a current and growing integral position in the independent music scene. The diverse label signs American artists, such as New York band ARMS, and foreign artists, such as Danish band Alcoholic Faith Mission from Copenhagen. The label's growing popularity is underscored by its recent signing to Sub Pop Licensing, opening its music to be licensed in countless famed films and television shows. Or its recent signing of the illustrious British folk singer David Thomas Broughton. Or its weekly and annual concerts and events, such as its annual distinguished residency at SXSW. I, a music fan and frequent and impartial Wikipedia editor, hope to establish the label's notable place in independent music not only in New York but across the country and around the globe in indie music. Thanks! MetropolisHearts (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As preempted above, Wikipedia doesn't establish notability for the topic—that's the job of reliable, secondary sources. The new sources are either primary (not independent, such as a press release), unreliable (blogs without fact-checking reputations), or passing mentions (not about the label, but mentioning the label incidentally). As it stands, there isn't enough sourcing for an article. czar 05:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to respectfully disagree on a comparative basis across Wikipedia, regarding notability. MetropolisHearts (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each article is addressed on its own merits—the adage here is "other stuff exists". If you have other things to nominate for deletion, go for it, but we don't keep articles just because we haven't addressed others. czar 16:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your selective interest in content quality is inane. If you wanted to actually show interest then why not check out Category:Record label stubs? MetropolisHearts (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the tone. Record label stubs are no more special than any other collection of stubs—we do one article at a time, each on its own merits. You're welcome to work on those stubs if you feel so inclined. czar 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft at best as the currently listed sources are noticeable but this article is still questionable for any better obvious notability and improvements. No serious needs for complete deletion, simply move to Draft and away from mainspace temporarily, SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this article in Creative Loafing, but it's more about an event than the record label. There were also a few more trivial mentions scattered about, such as this article in The New York Times. However, it's still a bit too soon for an article, as these are not in-depth coverage of the record label. I guess sending it to draft space would be OK, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiable sources meaning notability has not been established. The artists listed are indicative that this topic MIGHT be notable but on their own they are a clue, not a conclusion. The philosophy of Wikipedia regarding sources is, roughly, "If a topic really is notable then there shouldn't be any trouble finding secondary sources to demonstrate it." The lack of such sources here means that this article does not pass Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion at this time. If such sources can be found in the future, this article can be recreated then, with no prejudice to the article creators.-Markeer 23:48, 18 April 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. Opinions differ about whether coverage is sufficient for inclusion. The article is therefore kept by default, in absence of a consensus to delete. Sandstein 08:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Taylor (music producer)

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

Total lack of reliable secondary sources mentioning this music producer. Searches for his name coupled with "producer" or "songwriter" turn up only an allmusic page (user-submitted content) and copies of this wikipedia article. The one reference on the page is a dead link and no archived version of that article appears to exist anywhere. He is mentioned tangentially in a couple of articles about the Cher song "Believe" but that's it. Doesn't rise to the level required by WP:NMUSIC and certainly not WP:GNG. Rockypedia (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He meets WP:NMUSIC, 1, 3 and 4 for composers and lyricists. He won a Grammy. Per all music credits, he has a long lists of credits as composer and producer. There are numerous mentions of him as a producer for big-name artists in Billboard magazine: 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004. There's an article about him in Oxford Music Online (subscription required), and an article about him in Encyclopedia of Popular Music (Oxford University Press, subscription required). The article could be expanded and better sourced, but he seems to meet notability. — Maile (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a second - criteria 1, 3, 4, for composers and lyricists? Which songs did he write lyrics or music for? Because on "Believe", he is listed as a producer. I don't see evidence of him meeting (1) - writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition, or (3) Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a notable songwriter, composer or lyricist or (4) Has written a composition that has won a major music competition. Remember that you're citing rules for composers and lyricists and the only mentions of Mark Taylor in reliable sources are as a producer or mixer. With regards to the Grammy, he wasn't nominated for the Grammy as an individual - the song he produced won a Grammy. I don't believe that that alone establishes notability. Rockypedia (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Music Online and Encyclopedia of Popular Music appear to be the same thing. Additionally, much like imdb is for movies, it appears anyone can contribute an entry for music on those sites, so I wouldn't call those reliable secondary sources. Rockypedia (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The allmusic link to credits list hm as a producer and composer on numerous songs. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#1, Allmusic is not a reliable source, as it relies on user-submitted content. #2 Even if it was, which of those songs that he composed qualify under WP:NMUSIC? Rockypedia (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand you correctly that you are saying Oxford Music Online and Encylopedia of Popular Music are not reliable? Are you aware that we have both as part of Wikipedia Library? If you believe these are unreliable, I would encourage you to voice your opinion directly to that talk page. Editors here can only assume that if Wikipedia offers a subscription to sources, then Wikipedia sanctions those sources as reliable. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Help:Reliable sources wizard/Step 3 lists allmusic as a reliable source. — Maile (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask the question I posed in point #2 above: which of those songs that he composed qualify under WP:NMUSIC? Rockypedia (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a week since I asked that question, and I know the reason it hasn't been answered: Because there are none. He hasn't composed any notable songs. He does not qualify under WP:NMUSIC. Rockypedia (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as none of this suggests a better solidly independently notable article, still needs improvements and I'm not seeing any current signs of that. SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. He is mentioned only in passing in the sources that are out there. It will be tough to improve the page without verification. Meatsgains (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: DRV consensus to relist AfD for more comments ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Reliable sources wizard/Step 3 lists allmusic as a reliable source "for Music artist biographies and album reviews." The Grammy as composer for "Believe" is listed in the allmusic credits, not in the bio, and I don't know if that's significant or not. Anyway, I see that Taylor was mis-linked and therefore redlinked multiple times at Believe (Cher song). I have fixed that. if nothing else. Kinda surprised that we could have all this attention at the Afd and no thought to check if he was even properly linked from the song that is his greatest claim to notability, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Grammy and his large body of works support notability. The Oxford Music Online's article appears to be written by Barry Kernfeld and in any case doesn't appear to be something just anyone can edit, though they do solicit authors. (I can see both articles listed as subscription only, perhaps because I'm editing from within a peer institution's domain). I'd like another decent source to go with it though, thus the "weak" part. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Counterpoint He didn't win a Grammy. He didn't write the song that won a Grammy. The song won, and that Grammy - "Best Dance Recording" - is given to "recording artists for works containing quality vocal performances in the dance music genre." Cher accepted that Grammy onstage. The subject of this article supposedly has a "co-producer" credit on the song, which does not meet any part of WP:NMUSIC, as pointed out above. If that's his only claim to notability (and it appears that it is), it's not enough. Rockypedia (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment in the DRV and below. The large body of work listed on All Music is not what it seems. He wasn't doing sound engineer work as 3 years old, it isn't the guy who is the keyboard player for The Alarm or Simple Minds, both things those credits claim. Some of those may indeed be this Mark Taylor but certainly not all - in fact the guy from The Alarm has a rather extensive list of collaborations etc a rather extensive list of collaborations etc many of which match the other items on that All Music list. Fr reference this is about Mark Taylor from The Alarm and he was born in 1956 in Leicester. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can explain to me how the all music credits are a reasonable validated source. As stated at the DRV the credits do seem impressive, but some of them are from when he'd just be 3 years old according to the corresponding bio. Some of them are for the Mark Taylor from the band the Alarm, who was born in 1956 and is a completely different person. The bio part of the all music listing says nothing about this career as a music producer, but instead talks about a jazz musician. In short the whole thing being predicated on all these credits he has when it's quite clear the all music bio is a mix of various people called Mark Taylor. Additionally the http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195313734.001.0001/acref-9780195313734-e-27714?rskey=26a6iM&result=1 Oxford Encyclopedia of music bio] starts with the exact same wording as the all music bio, so is similarly questionable as to if it's talking about the same Mark Taylor. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I'm home, I can't see the bio any longer. I suspect you are right and it is about a different person. In which case I'd drop my weak keep. I likely won't have time to verify either way, so the closer should feel free to ignore my !vote if there is consensus it's the wrong person--I'm leaving town on vacation for a week with (hopefully) limited Internet access. I've grave doubts that the Oxford one is _wrong_ given who wrote it, but I also suspect it may be about the Jazz musician instead, again given who wrote it, assuming they are different people. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no doubt this guy is notable - Extensive article in The New York Times about Cher's song "Believe", outlining how it was produced/written, Taylor is mentioned and quoted several times. Mentioned in The Huffington Post - While working with Cher on the song “Believe” in 1998, producers Mark Taylor and Brian Rawling discovered that if they set Auto-Tune on its most aggressive setting, so that it corrected the pitch at the exact moment it received the signal, the result was an unsettlingly robotic tone. And this book as well - Perfecting Sound Forever. Mentioned in The New Yorker - The first popular example of Auto-Tune’s distorting effect was Cher’s 1998 hit “Believe,” produced by Mark Taylor and Brian Rawling. Results from HighBeam include many many mentions:

The Mail on Sunday - This was a hit single in 1999. The song, produced by Brian Rawling and Mark Taylor - the team behind Cher's 1998 hit Believe - came from the album Twenty Four Seven.

Sacramento Observer - The new album is Richie's ninth solo project and brings him together with some of the most successful contemporary producers of today, including Brian Rawling, Mark Taylor...

The New York Beacon - The album dropped last October with the release of "When The Heartache Is Over," co-written by John Reid of the Nightcrawlers and Graham Stack, and produced by Brian Rawling and Mark Taylor, the dynamic team behind Cher's multi-million hit "Believe."

The Washington Post - And while "Believe" won't disappoint anyone who enjoys a good laugh at an aging pop icon's expense, it's hard to knock the way the album's producers (Mark Taylor, Brian Rawling and Junior Vasquez) have groomed her as a high- tech, electronica-age cousin of Gloria Gaynor and Donna Summer.

The Mirror - They will record with producers Paul Barry and Mark Taylor, who are responsible for Enrique's major hit Hero.

Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service - Producers and songwriters Paul Barry and Mark Taylor, the Believe architects pour it on thick here.

The Buffalo News - A couple of years ago Cher turned her flagging recording career around with the help of a couple of hip, young producers. Brian Rawling and Mark Taylor, the guys behind Cher's smash hit, "Believe," are back behind the controls to produce Tina Turner's new single, "When The Heartache Is Over."

Chicago Defender - The album's producers are Brian Rawling, and Mark Taylor.

Chicago Sun-Times - ...Stewart has wisely turned over the producing reigns to Rob Dickins, who brought together a stellar stable of contemporary pop/R&B wizards including Brian Rawling, Mark Taylor and Christopher Neil.

The Irish Times - Brian Rawlings, Mark Taylor and Jeff Taylor, collectively known as Metrophonic, who took an interest in these teen tunesmiths and took on the task of producing their debut album.

Music Business Worldwide - It also includes songs by Grammy Award winner Mark Taylor, co-writer and producer of Heartbeat for Enrique Iglesias feat.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Every single one of these is an insignificant mention of the subject's name in articles that are not about him, and every single one is about him producing one song for Cher. That doesn't equal notability, even if 11 different newspapers made the same mention. He still has to pass WP:NMUSIC, and not one of the articles is even close to indicating that he does. Rockypedia (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Comment - Just to provide clarification on - every single one is about him producing one song for Cher - The Mail on Sunday, New York Beacon, Buffalo News and Chicago Defender are all articles about Tina Turner's song When the Heartache Is Over, The Sacramento Observer is about Lionel Richie's album Renaissance, The Mirror is about a duet from Ronan Keating and Enrique Iglesias and Iglesias' song Hero, The Chicao Sun-Times is about Rod Stewart's album Human, The Irish Times is about The Faders and Taylor's association with Metrophonic, and Music Business Worldwide is about Iglesias' song Heartbeat and Taylor's association with Metrophonic. In addition, we have two categories on WP specifically for Taylor - Song recordings produced by Mark Taylor (record producer), 36 articles and Songs written by Mark Taylor (record producer), 30 articles. He's produced/written for Belinda Carlisle, Britney Spears, James Morrison, Enrique Iglesias, Ronan Keating, Brian McFadden, Cher, Celine Dion, Tina Turner, many more and is frequently, if not always, listed in the lead of articles where he has produced/written.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What song did he write that is considered a "notable composition"? (the requirement laid out by WP:NMUSIC) Rockypedia (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. - Be with You - nominated for Grammy, Taylor credited as producer/writer - he won a grammy for producer/mixer for Best Dance Recording for Believe, and there is 30 Wikipedia articles that pass WP:GNG where Taylor is credited as writer and/or co-writer, so there is a whole category of his "notable compositions" where he is listed as writer and/or co-writer.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the 4th time - He didn't win a Grammy. The song Believe won a Grammy, and the Grammy was presented to the artist who performed the vocal (in this case Cher). He didn't write that song either; he was a co-producer on it, which basically means he was in the control room hitting record, which is why a producer isn't considered notable just for being listed as a producer on a single Grammy-winning song. There's still no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Rockypedia (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The song won a Grammy for Best Dance Recording. If it was a Grammy for best written song, then I would agree that this would not be his Grammy. But the producer is responsible for the song's recording, and he is indeed listed as one of the winners for the song on the Grammy website link in the article - but the writers are not listed because they are not responsible for recording the song. Rlendog (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Lots of mentions, no substantial coverage in reliable sources that we can actually build an article around. A redirect to the song would be a possibility though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Starblind: Redirecting to one song doesn't make any sense because he worked on several, and redirecting him to just one of his many credits is WP:UNDUE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He clearly meets WP:NMUSIC as a producer and songwriter with multiple credits in both fields. His incredibly generic name makes it hard to find substantial sources, but I think that enough have been unearthed in the course of this discussion to more than sufficiently assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Winning a Grammy award for Best Dance Recording (emphasis added) meets WP:NMUSIC criterion #8. I'll note additionally that the Grammy's own siite lists him as a winner for the song, but does not list many other people associated with the song, such as the songwriters. [6] And even if it didn't I agree with Ten Pound Hammer. Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If he meets neither WP:NMUSIC nor GNG, he probably meets WP:BIO#Creative professionals (or WP:AUTHOR), either criterion #3 or #4. He made contributions to well-known artists. --George Ho (talk) 21:23, 18 July 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) 16:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Shell

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

WP:N is not inherited from the artists worked with. Typical promo piece failing verification of source #1. Previously deleted at AfD, SPA/COI blocked sock promo spam article Widefox; talk 11:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and none of this is convincing to keep for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I just don't see how this meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICIAN. My Google searches turn up nothing better than what's in the article. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:59, 29 March 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. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginative (album)

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

It may have an article on Swidish Wikipedia but it has no more sources there than here. The album is not notable and fails any notability criteria. The AllMusic entry is not a review, only a track listing [7]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I think it passes WP:GNG, found some reviews here [8] , [9] , [10], [11] there were more , including Japanese, more German. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seaoftranquility.org is not a reliable source.^{Sources to avoid} The reliability of DPRP is disputed.^{Is DPRP reliable?·DPRP.net as a review source} Progwereld doesn't seem reliable to me either. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, the trouble with the list of RS is that it has hardly any non-english language sources which would be helpful for an album like this. Sea of Tranquility is on the avoid list but the other three references are not, including powermetal.de, they all seem to have a reasonably lengthy history and a dedicated staff, the dutch site has not been put on the avoid list at present.. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this, all in all, is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 27 March 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 21:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hölle

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

No references, no claim of notability, no content, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band K.I.Z., merging such content as is appropriate (ATD, PRESERVE, R). James500 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band or delete. Results look mostly like social media, official websites, and the occasional trivial mention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing worth saving here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best perhaps, could be redirected but is perhaps best deleted. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 31 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic of the Musicals

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

No sources or claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep, per Michig, providing that sources are added. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until better coverage is available as none of this even minimally satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Ok, so far we have a nomination that appears to be based solely on what is in the article, a Delete !vote with no argument whatsoever, and another !vote from ST which also doesn't appear to be based on anything other than the article contents. I Googled it, and found that this show has performed over 200 sell out dates, spawned a hit (of sorts) album by Mark Rattray - [12], [13], [14], [15]. I suspect that digging deeper will find more reviews of the show in newspapers, since shows as successful as this always get coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specifically to discuss the sources brought up by Michig. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:52, 24 March 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