Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Music|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Music. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Related deletion sorting


Music

[edit]

Aria (Indian singer)

[edit]
Aria (Indian singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, WP:BANDMEMBER with no WP:SIGCOV for individual notability other than passing mentions from X:IN-related reportings including but not limited to her "about"-type reporting as part of X:IN's debut-related promotional reportings from WP:BEFORE. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Cool

[edit]
Jihad Cool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD |


Stub breaks WP:NOTNEO; it should be a Wikitionary entry, not an article. The exception would be if it was a frequent-use neologism, whereas this term is not frequently used in WP:RSs. See WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Essentially the entire text of this article is already repeated in the second part of the lede of Jihadism. --OrebroVi (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the rationale. This was merely a fleeting neologism that never gained serious currency. The timing is probably key. A few sources mentioned it in 2014, and then ISIS took off, so there wasn't anything remotely cool about the popular conception of Jihad any more and the term swiftly died a death. If later sources existed that examined this demise, it would make for more of a subject. As it is, it's simply a meme that never really took off and doesn't really merit a standalone page. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikitionary, then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll

[edit]
100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this television special. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- (strong) -- per nominator. No SIGCOV and a single source is not enough, regardless.
MWFwiki (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Morse, Steve (1998-03-31). "VH1's Top 100 Choices Don't Rock". The Boston Globe. Factiva bstngb0020010915du3v00cpl. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Picking a Top 100 in any field is hard, but it's especially hard in rock 'n' roll, which is prey to all manner of whims and prejudices. That didn't stop cable channel VH1 from trying -- and this time it didn't poll critics or fans. It polled 600 artists, who collectively chose the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, and Bob Dylan as the Top 5. Those names probably come as no surprise, but there will surely be smirks at some of the other 95 acts on the list unveiled on VH1's "100 Greatest Artists of Rock &Roll." The show premieres tonight from 10 to 11, followed by additional one-hour segments at the same hour each night through Saturday. ... As a parlor game, it's fun to discuss the results. But the list could have been better, and so could the show, which succumbs to numbing repetition and is undone by Bacon's goofy rah-rah attitude and by an insipid female voice-over. Each winner is represented by video footage you've probably seen many times before and sometimes by self-serving concert clips from the VH1 archives. These are the "100 Greatest Artists" in a narrowed universe."

    2. Farber, Jim (1998-03-29). "Fab 4 Top 100 List". New York Daily News. Factiva nydn000020010918du3t006hj.

      The article notes: "Wanna start an argument? Name the 100 greatest music artists of all time in order.VH1 just dared to, basing its choices not on in-house opinions, nor on those of critics, but on the picks of current artists themselves.From Tuesday through Saturday (at 10 p.m.), the music channel will run five hour-long segments counting down the "100 Greatest Artists of Rock 'n' Roll" in groups of 20. The installments center around archival footage of the musicians and feature quotes from those they influenced. ... The results include some surprises. The top three 1) The Beatles, 2) The Rolling Stones and 3) Jimi Hendrix deserve comment only in that the third slot isn't occupied by Bob Dylan, who instead landed at No. 5. ... Even so, perhaps the most jaw-dropping choice is The Police at No. 10, above Ray Charles (No. 12), Marvin Gaye (No. 14) and Aretha Franklin (No. 21). However much juice this defunct band commands, they hardly rate Top Ten status in terms of innovation or depth."

    3. Gieske, Tony (1998-03-21). "VH1 Presents the 100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 351, no. 47. pp. 20, 133. ProQuest 2393629738.

      The article notes: "Six hundred musicians from the VH1 "roll and Rollodex" voted up a list of the 100 all-time all-frantic ones, and tonight the bottom 20 are stitched into a kind of rock quilt, the first of five tumultuous sections. The list runs from bottom to top, Letterman-style. ... Fats Domino gets to do "Blueberry Hill" all the way through, with only a few adulatory interruptions, but he's one of the few who is permitted a whole number. And so it goes in this high-speed panorama. The songs, the artists and the commentary are perforce familiar if not banal, so it's all in the editing, which is fortunately first-rate in the Jet Ski style for which MTV is famous. Jet Ski or Osterizer. We're talking jarring juxtapositions like Robert Johnson and Diana Ross, Carole King and Madonna, Johnny Cash and the Ramones. In the second chunk, to be heard Wednesday, John Coltrane wins the posthumous title of honorary rocker, and Miles Davis gets in there eventually."

    4. Hay, Carla (1998-03-21). "VH1 polls artists on rock's greats". Billboard. Vol. 110, no. 12. pp. 10, 110. ProQuest 227110870. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The article notes: "Amid the seemingly endless parade of awards shows and "best of" lists, VH1 has produced a unique music survey naming "The 100 Greatest Artists Of Rock And Roll." The acts included in the survey weren't chosen by critics or VH1 staffers but by other music acts. The survey results will be revealed in a countdown that premieres March 31-April 4 on VH1, and labels and retailers are already anticipating a sales boost for some of the acts as a result. ... The majority of those named in "The 100 Greatest Artists Of Rock And Roll" are artists who made their marks well before the dawn of MTV. Although consistent favorites Elvis Presley, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, and the Rolling Stones predictably have made the top 10, the survey also yields results that may be surprising to some people. David Bowie is ranked higher than Presley, and the Police are the only post-punk/MTV-era act ranked in the top 10. In addition, some acts who don't fall neatly into the rock category are on the list, including Bob Marley, Johnny Cash, Aretha Franklin, and John Coltrane."

    5. Piccoli, Sean (1998-04-03). "Business as Usual: Irrepressible Punk Rage". Sun Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.

      The article notes: "Rating the greats Off the subject of polemics _ but not too far off _ my always outrage-able Sun-Sentinel colleague, television critic Tom Jicha, spotted the music cable channel VH1 picking a fight of another sort this week: the 100 Greatest Artists of Rock 'n' Roll video-thon. VH1 says its 100 Greatest were selected through a mailing to more than 600 rock 'n' roll musicians. Not all results are surprising: The Top 10 includes the Beatles (1), Jimi Hendrix (3), Bob Dylan (5) and James Brown (6). But it gets interesting. Positing Dylan as a runner-up to Hendrix, in fact, may be the least argumentative of the rock panel's picks. ... The five-part series concludes with a pair of one-hour broadcasts, 10 tonight and Saturday, hailing the final 40 contenders through interviews, concert footage and video clips."

    6. Hesse, Monica (2007-09-29). "On Cable, Shows That Count Down To the Lowest Common Denominator". The Washington Post. ProQuest 2827611958. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.

      The article notes: "A decade ago, Jeff Gaspin, VH1's new vice president of programming, suggested that the channel do a countdown show -- a Casey Kasem-y thing with musicians, not critics, picking the rankings. In 1998, VH1 premiered "100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll": a five-part series going from No. 100 Paul Simon to the list-topping Beatles, with everyone from Nirvana (No. 42) to Gladys Knight & the Pips (91) in between. So many artists. So much anticipation. So much Kevin Bacon, who hosted."

    7. Ivry, Bob (1998-04-25). "Poll Takes the Pulse of Rock's Greatest Acts". The Record. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.

      The article notes: "lanagan sent ballots to hundreds of musicians, asking them to put together their entire Top 100 "greatest artists" list no more specific than that and received more than 100 back. ... Another sign that a new generation of rockers voted in the poll is the low position of the King of Rock-and-Roll Elvis could muster only a No. 8 ranking. ... Another mild surprise is the dearth of female artists in the top spots, especially in the era of Lilith Fair and boom times for women singer-songwriters like Jewel, Shawn Colvin, and Sarah McLachlan. Aretha Franklin was the top woman, at No. 21, and Joni Mitchell, another idol of all three of the aforementioned singers, was second in the women's category, at No. 32."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slaveco.

[edit]
Slaveco. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A MySpace band that never released an album. Had several notable members that were in SNFU, but Slaveco. is only mentioned in sources as a minor, failed side-step to that project. There are literally no sources that focus on the band as an independent, notable entity. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies for repeating myself from last edit summary, the band is discussed in multiple WP:RSes -- including two books and a documentary, cited in the article -- and hence seems to pass criterion #1 of WP:BAND. Given this, the information is noteworthy; and it furthermore does not belong in the SNFU article, since this would bloat that article; hence, I submit that it needs its own article. Relatedly, I'm not convinced that the term "MySpace band" means very much or is as damning as I take the usage to imply, since numerous bands great and small from the aughts had MySpace accounts. But I understand the editor's concerns and maybe we can see what others think. In any case, I vote keep. CCS81 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two books by the same author and a documentary that all mention it briefly as one of Ken Chinn's small projects (along with The Wongs and Little Joe that also don't have articles). MySpace band refers to the fact that when I found the article, it still had a MySpace link (which relates to the essay WP:MYSPACEBAND). Why? I Ask (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand, but the "WP:MYSPACEBAND" joke article seems to imply that this term refers primarily to self-generated content, e.g., about one's own non-noteworthy garage band, as evidenced by the proliferation of the term "your" throughout the joke article. There is no such content in the Slaveco. article. Hence, I don't see the relevance of WP:MYSPACEBAND to the Slaveco. article, deleted dead MySpace link not withstanding. Better would be to defer to WP:BAND and the criteria for notability described there. CCS81 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me lay this out for all our sakes. Here are the statements in favor of deletion, as far as I can tell, and my responses:
  • Slaveco. is a WP:MYSPACEBAND. This, I think, is false, since the article seems to imply that this term is for band articles with self-generated content, which is not the case for Slaveco.
  • Slaveco. never released a record. This is true but insufficient for deletion, because WP:BAND specifies criteria for inclusion other than releasing albums.
  • Slaveco. is only minimally treated in the WP:RSes. This seems to be what is worth discussing. Slaveco. is the subject of one ten-page chapter (Chapter 12, pages 196-206) of Walter 2020, which is a 17-chapter book. There is further discussion in Walter 2024, but it only spans about five pages. The editor in favor of deletion seems to suggest that this is insufficient for C1 of WP:BAND, whereas my argument is that it is significant coverage that is independently noteworthy and would be too bulky to fold into the SNFU article or articles about any of the individual members. On this, I think, the discussion should be focused. I hope this is helpful. CCS81 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jfire (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding these sources. I personally am still in favor of deletion because of WP:SUSTAINED. A few concert announcements from the same month don't do it for me. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can this not just be redirected/merged to a section under SNFU or Ken Chinn? I doubt anyone is going to care about a band that simply toured for a year outside of its relationship to those two. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two other notable members with their own articles, so I don't think it's right to imply that no one else is going to care other than those reading about Chinn or SNFU. I'm also not sure what the rationale for deletion is given that it passes WP:GNG. I see lots of "subjective" language ("I doubt...", "don't do it for me",) but can't see the rationale from the perspective of guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Maybe others have thoughts. CCS81 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sag & Tre

[edit]
Sag & Tre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Record labels are notoriously difficult; often the case the artists and the music are notable, and sourcing notability for the label is more tricky. In this case, neither the music nor the artists appear notable, yet we have a page for the label. In a WP:BEFORE I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this record label to meet WP:GNG, and that is before going anywhere near WP:NORG. I'd be happy to be proven wrong - but deletion is now proposed as Sag & Tre does not appear to meet any WP criteria for a standalone page. ResonantDistortion 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Korean artists live performances in Indonesia

[edit]
List of South Korean artists live performances in Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this passes WP:NLIST, as none of the sources discuss this topic in a group. However, it is possible that Indonesian or Korean sources exist that could prove me wrong given that my only language is English. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST and references just only trivial news.
Ariandi Lie Let's talk 21:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roma Sztárparádé

[edit]
Roma Sztárparádé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Could not find any other sources other than routine coverage/listings for the recording. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Lust

[edit]
Divine Lust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find no evidence that this musical ever came to fruition, let alone that it ran on Broadway. Zero coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu t/c 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of music and dance anime

[edit]
List of music and dance anime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not an expert with the Anime WP, but the term "music and dance anime" seems not to satisfy WP:NLIST: it's not a specific category on the wiki, the self-imposed criteria of not contain[ing] strictly idol anime, OVAs and ONAs but may contain anime that use idol setting or themes as part of a bigger plot would seem to be so vague and indefinite as to make the list difficult to populate or understand what makes an entry eligible. There is also no sourcing to support list entries. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to List of musical anime I'll try to fix and redefine it. WP:TNT is also an option . Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, the two options you've presented are polar opposites. Just clarifying - do you think the list as currently drafted can satisfy WP:NLIST? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the self-imposed criteria of not contain[ing] strictly idol anime, OVAs and ONAs but may contain...", the autor of the article here, is because there already is a list of idol anime and manga so there is no need to duplicate things. Also majority of people are not into both, they are either into idol things or are not. You could divide music anime/manga genres into two broad subgenres: idol subgenre and non-idol subgenre. There are examples for "not strictly idol, but uses idol setting as part of a bigger plot": Heroines Run the Show: The Unpopular Girl and the Secret Task. A girl works for an idol and in idol setting but the story is not about being an idol or becoming an idol. The other is Key the Metal Idol. Also in idol setting but there is a conspiracy behind the curtain and existential crisis of a robot - now compare it to run of the mill idol stories like Pretty Rhythm or D4DJ. There is also anime like Samurai Jam -Bakumatsu Rock-, Hypnosis Mic: Division Rap Battle Rhyme Anima and Paradox Live the Animation for which you could say are idol stories because of the characters but the story is not about being an idol. I don't think it's vague. It's just a question of is there a story about sth other than being (becoming) an idol in the story.
    You stated "Inexplicably it also looks like the list contains manga as well." It does NOT. You should't misguide people and not provide examples. Everything on the list is/has an anime/OVA/ONA, but the "problem" is that not many anime have their own articles or (anime-)links redirect to a manga page. It would be ridiculous to expect than a 1 ep OVA has an article. I tried to have as many blue links as posssible so it's possible there are links to a manga but it DOES have anime/OVA/ONA.
    There is "dance" in the name of the article because there are anime that revolve around dance, rather than just singing and playing instruments, namely Hula Fulla Dance, Brave Beats and Tribe Cool Crew.
    "no sourcing" - not sth that cannot be done after the fact and there is a reason for that. not justification, but for majority of entries there is a blue link to the main article that has all the sourcing you can get so it's not sth I pulled out of my ass. I choose not to source, primarily, because I knew there were bound to be dense people, I was right, and there is likelihood for the article to be deleted, so potentially not to lose extra time I made that decision. A list like this, and this is quite a comprehensive list, takes quite a bit of time to make, more than you could guess. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I have omitted the misleading statement in the nomination. I appreciate the time it's taken to create this. WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT is a concern because the list is manually assembled and has an unclear scope. When looking at pages like List of idol anime and manga you can see there's a sourced background and exploration of its scope. Without that here, it's hard to reliably figure out what qualifies an entry for the list other than loosely having a music and/or dance focus. The idol point is a concern because it would be quite WP:ARBITRARY to consider what goes in and out of this article based on an editor's subjective assessment of how much the anime involves an idol plot. That's why external sourcing about this as a clear genre or category is important. Others may consider that this is a very clear and established genre category and if so that's ok and all that needs to be done is better support this in the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Miminity. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Setenzatsu.2, I take it that your comment is a vote to "Keep" this article? Also, an AFD can not close with an outcome of "Rename" as that is an editing decision. If that is what you want to happen. then vote to Keep this article and then a potential rename discussion can occur.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Addendum to my comment/argument presented above: "the self-imposed criteria of not contain[ing] strictly idol anime, OVAs and ONAs but may contain..." was already addressed in my first comment, but to expand upon it (and address ＶＲＸＣＥＳ's answer to my comment: "The idol point is a concern because it would be quite WP:ARBITRARY to consider what goes in and out of this article based..." ), EVEN IF that is a problematic point of the list it only really concerns 2 to 5 anime out of close to 100 on the list. So it's not an argument for deletion of the entire list. Those entries could just be removed or a discussion could be held if those entries should be kept.
    Now addressing "the list is manually assembled and has an unclear scope....hard to reliably figure out what qualifies an entry for the list other than loosely having a music and/or dance focus" I would argue that the scope is not unclear, and that it's not "loosely" focused on music. With two or three exceptions where the story is told with music (no dialog and the story is performed against a background of songs, like in A-Girl or My Oldies Are All Color) every other entry has an individual or a group (band, orchestra...) that PERFORMS music pieces. That is the scope - CHARACTERS PERFORM and are in-world artists in most cases (the same is for the two dance entries), except those few (I believe 2 or 3 at most) works where dialog is replaced with music, but for those music is essential to tell the story. That's the reason, I choose for it to be only an anime list - you can see and hear characters perform music/dance which in manga you cannot, but also while reading manga you cannot even imagine it because you don't know what the songs are, which is a bit different from other types of manga where you can imagine things based on description.
    edit: I realised that on the surface "characters perform" excludes anime music videos (that are longer than 15 minutes if we stick to the requirement given for the list) but the same argument could be made for anime music videos as the argument given for titles like A-Girl or My Oldies Are All Color. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Araba 2004

[edit]
Araba 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NSINGLE. Unreferenced. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo Ajudua

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bobo Ajudua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One major problem is that this creation is likely a paid contribution that is undisclosed. The citations are evaluated based on this version as follows;

Citation 1 is a paid promotional puff and also a falsehood, especially when it said Ajudua’s impact is particularly evident in his work with Davido. He played a key role as a co-writer for “NA MONEY,” a track from Davido’s Timeless album that features The Cavemen and Angelique Kidjo. There is, as a matter of fact, no credit on anyone such as Bobo Ajudua if you check any of your streaming platforms for the single "Na Money" by Davido, and this alone is ridiculous and makes this whole thing iffy.

Citation 2 does is not only a paid puff but does not provide the substantial coverage we require to pass WP:GNG.

Citation 3 is not only an unreliable source, it lacks a byline and, even if it does have a byline, does not provide the substantial coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG.

Citation 4 is not only a run of the mill piece, it lacks a byline and fails WP:SIGCOV.

Citation 5 from marginally reliable Vanguard does nothing but promotes and praises the subject such that only one or two useful information is passed. Take a look at the ridiculous line breaks while scrolling through the piece.

Citation 6 is just like Citation 5 above, does nothing but praises the subject ridiculously such the nothing notable is passes as an information. Over the years, he has cultivated a reputation for his thorough understanding of corporate law, intellectual property, and entertainment law. His expertise ensures that artists, creatives, and brands are not only legally protected but also strategically positioned for sustainable growth. What is the job of an entertainment lawyer? How is this anybody's business? What's notable about ensuring his clients are strategically positioned for sustainable growth?

Citation 7 is yet another paid puff about his brands that are doing nothing but their job, and in this context, lacks the substantial coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG for this subject.

People get sacked from their jobs everyday, what is notable about the subject being sacked?

What is Wikipedia's business with whether the father attended the subject's wedding or not?

Every other source I skipped are just as bad as the ones I already evaluated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Striking my vote since the reliability of Nigerian news outlets, which have covered the subject in some depth, is subject to an ongoing discussion in which I don't have an opinion. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources show that the subject is notable.:
Jonahakuso (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)— Jonahakuso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. There are sources that were not available in the last discussions. This one from PM News was published in April, 2023; this from Nigerian Tribune where they called him a pioneer] was published in 2022 and contrary to Vanderwaalforces that this is just passing mentions, this has some information on him; this from TheNEWS has an in-depth coverage on his company(ies). was published in July 2023; this from The Guardian was published in November 2023; this from Daily Times was published in 2024; This from Vanguard (which has been labelled a marginal reliable) has a byline and can be used to establish some notability. I believe that these sources meet the WP:GNG because 1) they are independent of the subject 2) has indepth coverage 3) are reliable 4) has demonstrated independent coverage. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would change my mind if there are evidence and not just there words ie some citations.

Ajudua is a co-writer of a Grammy nominated album 11:11 which meets WP:NCOMPOSER #1 and #4. This information is verifiable on every music streaming platform. Ahola .O (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of these sources taken together can arguably count as in-depth coverage, but I'd also like to note here that the reliability of most Nigerian news outlets is the subject of an ongoing discussion above my pay grade. I'll strike my vote above since I don't have an opinion on the reliability of these sources.
I will point out though that the subject is not co-writer of a Grammy-nominated album, he is co-writer of one track on a Grammy-nominated album. Most of the co-writers listed in 11:11 (Chris Brown album) don't have articles. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I had shown above shows that the Ajudua has coverages since 2022 or thereabout and I am sure that an extensive search will definitely show more.
I am not basing the notability here with just the single track. I am showing that amongst the sources that they meet a criteria there also, atleast #1. Ahola .O (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Echoing my last !vote, nothing has changed since November when we last visited with an AFD about this person. I don't see notability based on the sources, which, as explained, are all puff or PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree b above. The new sources mentioned above appear to be simply fresh paid puff pieces and interviews, and being fired by a celebrity client is at best WP:BLP1E. His involvement in notable projects has been minor: for example, as noted above he co-wrote one song on an album nominated for a Grammy. None of this quite brings it over the line for WP:BIO. Wikishovel (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article and its sources fail to meet WP:BASIC in my opinion. Source 2 is an opinion, says so in the title. Source 3 does not exist. Source 5 sounds like ChatGPT; "Rather than simply promoting a product, he crafts strategic partnerships that align with the brand’s long-term goals." Source 6 seems to simply copy and paste the existing information in the WP article in question. The creator of this article seems to have some type of conflict (monetary or otherwise) as evidenced on his talk page, especially because this article has been in AfD before. All of this smells really bad to me hence my vote to delete promptly. Mamani1990 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly not notable per WP:GNG; representing celebrities doesn't necessarily suit well or aims that he/she may be notable. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - according to this he was a speaker at the Nigerian Bar conference but not one of the keynotes. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music Proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Music&oldid=1268180501"