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: - To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
-
- Look through the list of current discussions to find items related to this subject area.
- 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. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Music}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users 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.
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Music.
Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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. 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.
- Related deletion sorting
- List of post-disco artists and songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "List of post-disco artists and songs" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
This article is a list of random songs produced or performed in the post-disco era. Most of the references in the article are not reliable (discogs/dusty groove), while most of the rest are either blogs or misinterpreted and such. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete - ridiculous and arbitrary list and WP:SYNTH. Eusebeus (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Oh yeah, WP:SYNTH is getting down tonight. Boogie and delete! Angryapathy (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment - i propose to delete most of unsourced WP:Synth's and keep only sourced items. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)- Keep I think this is a problem that every second list of songs/artists/shoes/booze/etc suffers. It's all about time. We should wait for more reliable sources. Some songs should be deleted, but I think deletion is not a good idea, but fixation is a change, that we can trust in. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I think that by limiting this to the sourced items, and by providing additional (and sourced) context that explains "post-disco", this can be a worthwhile spinoff of post-disco. I recognize that there's the opportunity for all sorts of jokes about disco music in general, but I'll forgo attempts at humor in this instance, since the author is striving to link to reliable and verifiable sources. Most articles don't bother. To the extent that there are problems with original synthesis, they can be fixed, particularly by limiting this to songs where that label was applied. Mandsford (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Post-disco is a real genre, so listing things that fall into it, is a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia list. Dream Focus 17:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Bon Jovi Album Discography (Extended) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Bon Jovi Album Discography (Extended)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
duplicates information already present in the Bon Jovi discography any other information in unsourced and from WP:BADCHARTS. This article should be deleted and any valuable sourced information be merged into the proper discography. Mister sparky (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete useless, info can be found in Bon Jovi discography --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; mostly redundant information. Any reliably-sourced material not already in Bon Jovi discography can be merged there. Gongshow Talk 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 00:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Again, mostly redundant information. Langdon (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, redundant. - eo (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge with Bon Jovi discography - it seems that all the information included in the above article could be included in the normal discography, there is no need for an extended version. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 03:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Post-disco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Post-disco" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Plenty of sources, but "post disco" existing as a distinct concept appears to be synthesis of a bunch of sources that use the phrase in passing to simply denote that whatever they were talking about occurred after the rise in popularity of disco. Gigs (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Keep Plenty of sources [1] in various music magazines and we could have post-disco for the same reasons as we have Post-punk etc. Independent mention, that is, not WP:SYNTH. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Look at the way those sources mention the phrase. "Post-disco R&B", "Post-disco funk", etc. It is almost always a modifier, not a concept of its own. Gigs (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- "It is almost always a modifier, not a concept of its own." ~ WP:POV. Also the "real" genres like disco/rock/pop/ can be modifier (or it can be a fusion genre) = disco-funk pop, country-rock jazz, blues-rock, post-punk jazz, electropop metal, indie-rock country, etc. This is not an real argument. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Deletion discussions are not required to adhere to neutral point of view. The goal of them is to express points of view. Gigs (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Power.corrupts. Post-disco IS a real genre (it's the same like post-punk, post-rock, post-country, post-post.. etc .. and meaning is all the same = after the punk, after the rock, etc), it's NOT only an era. We can also speculate that Disco is not a kind of music, because RollingStone defined it per the word "discotheque" -> disco is all type of music that is playing on discotheques. So much WP:SYNTHESIS gonna get ya on Disco article, I recommend to nominee a Disco article. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC). By the way, *cough* Google test: 76,900 raw results. Last.fm have tag with post-disco (there are same artists that are in the post-disco article). It's just a proof that something that is called as "post-disco" is real. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- A number of search results in Google is not an argument for the existence of this article here. So isn't the Last.fm directory. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The article's main source, AllMusic, seems to just be using "Post-Disco" to fill a gap in its hierarchical taxonomy of music genres, providing parentage to certain genres (house, in particular), which otherwise would've been too closely aligned with disco or left as orphans. By AllMusic's own vague definition, it's not a single genre but a range of genres which arguably aren't related, except by virtue of having been part of the era immediately following the one dominated by disco. AllMusic is not a reliable source for genre definitions (as has been brought up in relation to electronic music and heavy metal), and the fact that they scrubbed their contributors' names from most of their site a while back further undermines their credibility. Other sources haven't provided a convincing case for post-disco as a genre, per se, but rather as a temporal qualifier. I might support a rename and change of focus to "boogie" (the main "post-disco" genre which has more traction), but at this point I don't think boogie, being limited to the realm of probably a few thousand DJs worldwide, is a mature enough term to warrant more than a paragraph in the main Boogie article. —mjb (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting, however boogie article is saying nothing about some "boogie disco" from 80s... is it this line: "In the late 1980s and the early 1990s country bands released country boogies"? Maybe post-disco is in real some country music subgenre, I don't know. Boogie-woogie is not related to 80s- "stripped down funky electronic not-a-disco music". However, AllMusic with support of anonymous is a WP:RS anyway --> that provides post-disco IS a real genre. In Wikipedia there so many articles that they've have only 1 source. US garage... what-the-something is "US garage"? That article is full of WP:SYNTHESIS and there's no reliable sources, why AfD post-disco? Why not US garage? I can put here over 9000 wikilinks with no sources and full of unpublished synthesis, if you want. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: By all means, if you find other poorly sourced genre articles with dubious notability, put them up on AfD. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good argument. — Gwalla | Talk 19:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I would rather vote for deletion of that messy article. The WP:SYNTH concern of that article is not new, and it had been discussed before: the first discussion, the second discussion. It has already been noted for several times, that none of the references in that article mention a genre called post-disco: all of them, from the first to the last, are just a carefully compiled into a collection of the uses of the prefix "post-" and "disco-" together, found in any sources that could likely be considered as reliable. Moreof, some of those references simply advocate someone's POV and do not list any reliable sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Many of those sources are misinterpreted: one brief analysis of the sources here.
- The most reliable source for the article, a short AMG article on post-disco never says in text that post-disco is some genre of music. Here is the link for that article, you may read it yourself: [6]. The claim that post-disco is a genre of music appeared because that AMG article page has a huge 'Genre' word, located above the note/article itself. I still would be curious to see how that page could be accurately used to reference the claim post-disco is a genre: it's simply impossible, as that information is absolutely insufficient for that type of claims and every try to point to that word linked to what is said in the article itself will be a kind of Original Research. In a few words, what the AMG article actually says is that post-disco is a particular era in the history of popular music: "While it's entirely accurate to say that disco led to house, there's a distinct era between the dissolution of the former and the solidification of the latter — covering roughly half a decade, between the late '70s and early '80s — that is often termed post-disco. " -- Appletangerine un (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- So post-disco is a genre, that AMG source says that. Are you trying to discredit a reliable source? They say that between disco and house era is an post-disco era, but they also trying to explain what's "post-disco" as a genre. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Please don't think that timelessly repeating "Post disco is a genre" will have any result here. The article doesn't support your opinion, and that is. What it describes is exactly what it defines, eg. an era in the history of popular music. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Brand New Eyes Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Brand New Eyes Tour" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Also nominating the tour below for the same reasons
- The Final Riot! Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete A single non-independent source fails WP:RS. Naming the dates for the Brand New Eyes Tour is also promotional since it is still ongoing. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Eastpak Antidote Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Eastpak Antidote Tour" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Non notable concert tour that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Although a number of references are presented, the majority use [www.setlist.fm], which is itself a wiki and so fails WP:RS. The remaining references serve only to list the tour dates. They are not reviews of any of the gigs and do not establish any notability. They certainly do not meet the requirement of GNG of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Nouse4aname (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Also nominating the related tour for the same reasons.
- The Economy Sucks, Let's Party! Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Delete Both clearly fail all guidelines cited. These sorts of "articles" cheapen WP... Doc9871 (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just like blogs, wikis aren't necessarily unreliable sources. Wikis can be closed to only a number of selected editors in which case it could very well be reliable. (It's not in this case, but I wanted to make sure this kind of misinformation doesn't spread.) Reliability of a source depends on who writes it and who publishes it. What sort of software is used to do it, is of no importance. - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Yes, sorry, not all wikis are bad. But in this instance it is a wiki aimed at 12 year old kids to post to set list of the recent gig they went to (ok, that's cynical), but there are invariably more reliable sources than wikis, and if there aren't then that's an indication of the notability or lack thereof... Nouse4aname (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Source material aside, I'm against keeping these pages (and their ilk) for another simple reason. Does any and every tour from any and every band deserve its own page? Clogging WP with this sort of trivial list-making... It's a principle thing for me... Doc9871 (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Perhaps we need a subsection of WP:MUSIC specifically aimed at tours... perhaps I start a discussion over there... Nouse4aname (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- This wiki can be edited by anyone(I have edited it myself), so it is completely unreliable. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but this wiki isn't meant to be used as a primary source. Everything that is presented here should be supported by reliable sources as per WP:V. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of significant coverage anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why can't you people understand the Setlist.fm wiki sources are just for the setlists. The reason this page exists is for the tour dates and thats what there is, tour dates with links to various sites who confirm those and served as reliable sources for the tour. I spend so much time collecting tour info, tour dates, bands bill on tour, only to get all my tour articles here on WP deleted. Its been done to a Rise Against tour page I made, its been done to two Europe tour pages I made, and now this. I don't see a reason why a band like this can't get its own page for a tour, if a band like My Chemical Romance gets a page, and even if bands like Guns N' Roses and Bon Jovi are million times bigger, its not a reason for their tours to be so notable. There's page for small Iron Maiden tours of like one month, sure the band is big but who said a month long tour is notable? I don't see a reason why all those pages I work hard on and create get this delete nomination, just because such a tour is not notable like an Iron Maiden month long tour, or Deep Purple's first tour page which is like 10 dates... JackShestak (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Now, I can't speak for all us "people", but I can tell you that putting your hard work into something that is bound to get deleted seems like an awful waste. I've been on a few Grateful Dead tours, where getting the setlist for every show is like a religion for some people (myself included at the time). Should there be a page for every tour the Dead ever did? The amount of useless information would be staggering. Set lists like the ones you complain about being deleted belong on fan sites, not WP... Doc9871 (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Eyesofsound (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Eyesofsound" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
This article does not meet the general notability guideline (this article received several "problem templates" a year ago, and since then no improvements were made). Cannibaloki 01:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 07:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- They appear to have signed several notable bands, maybe it could be rejigged as a "list of bands signed by Eyesofsound". Polarpanda (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Love Story (Katharine McPhee song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Love Story (Katharine McPhee song)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
The song fails WP:NSONGS, it failed to chart and is unlikely to grow beyond a stub Aspects (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure. It was officially the second single. It was played on the radio and charted in the 60s on Mediabase's Pop chart and a video was made that was played on TRL and MTV Asia. Plus, it sold over 77,000 downloads. I wouldn't say it had high notability, but it seems notable enough as an official single to have its own article as part of information about its album. I'd like to hear other opinions before I decide what to vote. Ducold (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC) - Comment. Here is a Billboard review of the song [7]. Gongshow Talk 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Since Gongshow already found at least one reliable source from which the article can be expanded, I see no reason to believe that the article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nonpop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Nonpop" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Article created 2005 but still only a stub: failing to grow and possibly non-notable. Most edits have been to do with maintenance and categorization rather than substance. Jubilee♫clipman 00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete Per nom, and because the article does not establish widespread useage of the term.RadManCF (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 06:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not sure whether this isn't just a neologism. Looking for uses in the news, there's nothing this year, although just because a term isn't used doesn't mean it wasn't notable. I don't think use is widespread enough at any point for it to be included. Fol de rol troll (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems to be a minor WP:NEOLOGISM that has never caught on. --Glenfarclas (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Never Say Never Festival (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Never Say Never Festival" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Notability is being drawn into question as Google News seems to find only five hits all from the same website. -Pickbothmanlol- 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - appears to eb a local festival with only local coverage from a single newspaper -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Barbadian Superstardom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "Barbadian Superstardom" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Whilst looking on the talk page of this article, I noticed that, over a year ago, a user pointed out that the DVD cover contains the word "Unofficial". Therefore, this casts doubt over the DVD's notability and the article's claims that the singer produced the piece herself. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC) - I have informed said user about this discussion. Hopefully this won't violate WP:CANVAS. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: The nominator GaGaOohLaLa has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Fences&Windows 16:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC) - International Film Music Critics Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "International Film Music Critics Association" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Non-notable organization. All references in the article are from the group's own site (after I removed one which pointed to a dead link). Perhaps a notation in List of film awards would be enough? otherlleft 16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete. This organisation seems to be trying to make itself notable; but it fails. The film critics on its list of members appear to be totally unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkativerata (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nom, I cannot find significant coverage for this organization or its awards. Delete all articles about the awards and the organization itself. Angryapathy (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - main focus of their activity are the awards which have resulted in almost no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do not delete I am not sure how to take part in this discussion, but I suppose this is the place? Who decides whether or not an organization is "non-notable" or its members "totally unknown"? There are numerous independent sources online to verify the validity of the Wikipedia article: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. -- Moviescore (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck searching for information. What makes it tricky is that we can't use the press releases, blog posts, or publicity bios because they don't pass the standard for verifiability. We need sources that have some kind of editorial review (like articles released through major media outlets, as opposed to reprinted news releases) to prove it meets the standards of notability, as well.--otherlleft 03:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do not delete People, people. Are you seriously doubting the validity of the IFMCA and its members? I cannot understand the lack of any arguments whatsoever and put your comments in a logical and mature context no matter how hard i tried. If you are in any way actually involved with the film music area, you'd be already very well familar with the websites, magazines, webzines, blogs and organizations we represent such as: BSO Spirit (directly attached and responsible for the UBEDA film festivals, the highly successful and highly popular event amidst the circle of film music composers and professionals who also attend each year), Music From the Movies which is one of the oldest, boldest and still leading film music publications and sources, Soundtrack Net and ScoringSessions.com, possibly the most popular film music website after filmtracks, speaking of which - filmtracks itself, the most well-known film music destination for years, scoremagacine (head and organization committee of the highly popular and CD-released SONCINEMAD Madrid International Film Music festivals that took place in 2006 and 2007 with Trevor Jones and Alan Silvestri in concerts respectively, still continuing with future plans), TrackSounds one of the most active and varicolored major film music destinations to date and also one of the oldest and still strong and the same applies to scorereviews - maintitles.net, the bold Movie Music UK and of course the no.1 film music related website / releasing label and institution in the world, FSM (Film Score Monthly (USA), Ryan Keaveney's Cinemusic, easily one of the 'classics' in the film music modern history, more labels likeBSX, one of the leads in the film music releasing industry and of course the MovieScore Media that does a fantastic job promoting and releasing new and notable film music from upcoming bright talents in the genre, Southall's moviewave, filmmusicmag.com and other major film music websites, radios, and 'zines / publications of all kinds involving extremely well-knon professionals of the industry from the ENTIRE WORLD. I won't tire you with more copy-pastes, you can find it all here (http://filmmusiccritics.org/members/ - IFMCA's about page). THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED ABOVE ARE UNFORTUNATELY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNPROFESSIONAL. MOST IMPORTANTLY THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNCALLED FOR IN A WEBSITE LIKE WIKIPEDIA WHICH GATHERS AND LISTS INFORMATIVE DATA FROM THE ENTIRE WORLD. I really hope this matter will be taken into account and be taken care of the soonest possible as it's an insult to the organization and their members, who constitute a significant percentage of the film music population.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) 08:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC) — Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC) - Delete - no third-party evidence of notability. Xuz (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- You mean other than the twelve examples provided by Moviescore above? --JonBroxton (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- The editor was correct - none of those examples are third-party. They are press releases, blog posts, and publicity materials which are all self-published.--otherlleft 03:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. If someone can find some good secondary sources, this could become a valuable article. But I haven't seen any independent substantial coverage. Racepacket (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Genuine question: what kind of secondary sources? I mean, if official composer biographies, articles on the webites of some of the world's largest performing rights organizatons (ASCAP, PRS), one of the world's major recording studios (Abbey Road), and a positive pieces from a major Australian film website singing about the fact that one of their composers was nominated isn't enough - what is? A cursory google search of "International Film Music Critics Association" reveals 756,000 results. The acronym IFMCA gets 20,700 results. There have to be enough secondary sources in those 776,700 pages to warrant saving the articles. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- What you have with the links provided is biographies which are written in order to make the people sound more impressive - that's what promotional writing is all about. Sources showing that the awards have been covered by major news organizations would be much better, because those media have an editorial staff which verifies the info, and they are known to be reliable. In general, if the person writing the info is the same one making the decision to publish it, it's not a reliable source. Have the shows been on Entertainment Tonight, in the New York Times, or even listed in an encyclopedia of pop culture? (That last one wouldn't necessarily be a good source, but if it exists it probably could point to some good ones.)--otherlleft 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, what about something like this [20] from The Australian, or here [21], published on the IMDB's daily news page. Also, your comment about 'biographies which are written in order to make the people sound more impressive' - surely the fact that many extremely high-profile composers have chosen to add the information to their biographies makes the organization and its awards MORE notable, not less... if the organization and its awards were not notable and the film critics on its list of members were totally unknown (as the original nominator contends), surely the composers would not include it on a publication intended to make them sound better? In each of the examples I just gave, the person writing the info was never the same one making the decision to publish it. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- question Are the awards it gives considered here as evidence of notability? if so , the organization is also. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment OK, here's the thing. In the interest of full disclosure, I confirm that I am a member of this organization. I am a film music critic, and have been for 10 years. This is my website: [22]. I am fully aware that, technically, this makes me in violation of WP:COI, but if you actually read the article(s) in question you will see that the information presented there is unbiased, and simply states that the organization exists, and outlines what it does, with no bias. I have been an editor here for long enough to know how to write an article that does not contravene Wiki's core policies. Furthermore, I completely understand Wiki's core policy of WP:V, and understand why the articles have been nominated. The problems I have is this: The organization clearly exists. We're sort of like Online Film Critics Society, but with a specific focus on music written for film; as such, we're a niche organization within the cinema world. The problem, really, is to do with the fact that the only third party coverage we get is when we do our annual awards, and then we get a LOT of publicity, but by the very nature of the publicity itself it is limited in its scope to the Awards. We announce our nominees, and then lots of other people connected to the industry re-disseminate the information. What I'm trying to understand is how that makes the organization non-notable. If media outlets directly related to the film music industry, performing rights organizations, composers, film and video game websites, record labels and so on all deem this information to be notable and worth re-disseminating, why is none of this valid in the eyes of Wikipedia? Beyond the initial press release produced by the IFMCA, none of the subsequent reports on the nominations are done by members of the IFMCA; they are all independent the group, published by others who deem our nominations notable enough to highlight. Another problem I've seen is the "I've never heard of it so it must not be notable" argument(which used to have a WP: shortcut but I can't find it now); as Christodoulidesd said above, the members of the group, and the websites and publications associated with those members, are VERY notable in the context of film music criticism. Again, to draw parallels with the Online Film Critics Society, IFMCA members are of equal standing, but they write about film music specifically, rather than "films". What I'm basically, trying to say is "help" - I am willing to work on sourcing, referencing, and anything else that will bring the articles up to WP:N standards, as I think it would be a shame if these articles were deleted. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Delete Multiple issues. First, any wacko can hand out awards. If the sockpuppet Christodoulidesd is any indication, this is indeed just some wacko. And I really dislike the all caps yelling. Second off, the article is not formatted in a way comprobale to awards that people care about, in that WP is not a list, but this article is. If the organization was notable, people who cared to look could find the list elsewhere. Look towards the above link for what I am talking about. Nuclear Lunch Detected Hungry? 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - First of all, Christodoulidesd isn't a sockpuppet. He's a film music journalist from Greece who was subject to a case of mistaken identity. Secondly; so, you're saying that it's a formatting issue? If that's the case, then if the article was re-formatted to look lke the Golden Globes would that be a step in the right direction? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete, as stated by other parties, the IFMCA is a solid and completely official entity with strong connections within the film industry. Film music encompasses all manner of technicalities pertaining to the art form, to say that this is not a reputable or legit association is detrimental to an ever thriving industry, which relies upon positive word of mouth and internet community awareness in addition to the other key forms of media. The IFMCA seeks to encourage film music awareness and issue awards and credits where and when due. The association has no secret agenda of profiteering initiatives, it is a recognised body that only seeks to work with the film music industry, encompassing all aspects, for positive reasons. Members of the IFMCA work in radio, press and in some cases work for long established film music related organisations, like Film Score Monthly, Music From the Movies, Moviescore Media, On the Score, Varese Sarabande to name but a few and have solid connections with many film studios and their affiliates. I hope the need to defend the IFMCA's presence on Wikipedia will cease with haste. Thank you for your attention. (Timjburden (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)) - Delete per nom. None of t he opposers have succeeded in demonstrating that this is notable organisation per our criteria. The article is lightly promotional and is lightly sourced to boot, so time to call time. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- MTV Europe Music Award for Best Push Act (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: "MTV Europe Music Award for Best Push Act" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Award within an award show, not notable CynofGavuf 12:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Looking at [Category:MTV Europe Music Awards] There seems to be a separate article for each award. I think they should all be merged.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - Merge all or Keep: Per Mattg82. Joe Chill (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Subvert! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: "Subvert!" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Extremely rare cassette album that was self released. Nothing online about it, nor in print. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. I say either delete or merge with an appropriate article. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC) - Merge to main artist's article - there are several others too, such as Spells (album). --Jubilee♫clipman 23:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Phoenix (music producer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: "Phoenix (music producer)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. There are several claims made in the article, but sourced to a blog. Significant third party reliable sources are lacking. ~YellowFives 07:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Count this a keep from User:TSKREO, the primary author of the article. TSKREO left me this message at my talk page, and I am relaying it here because it may be informative to other editors:
- "I will make adjustments to this page. However the champ magazine site is not only a blog, but also a radio show in Toronto, Canada. The interview was a transcribed on the site. I will delete the material referencing Champ magazine. However the youtube account and link are official and the material on that account are distributed by rapper 50 cent. Also the wikipedia page for 50 cent's album Before I Self Destruct overtly credits Phoenix as the producer of the track Flight 187. The material regarding Phoenix and his linkage as the producer of that song is supported and has valid sources, right?"
- This was the version of the article that had the Champ Magazine references he is talking about. My reply to him: "I will offer my opinion that if you can show which radio station runs the Champ blog, then the Champ blog may be a good source to keep in the article." ~YellowFives 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - delete - no independent verificaztion of natobality. Twri (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Music Proposed deletions
|
Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music/archive.
