Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

Ipecac Recordings

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

WP:NCORP fail. There's not enough independent, secondary, regional and beyond audience supporting notability Graywalls (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, Companies, and California. Graywalls (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep per additional sources: New Noise Magazine & , Bandcamp, CNBC, and Outburn.

Comment Bandcamp = WP:SPS and fails WP:RS. CNBC and Outburn sources for this particular matter is Churnalism and they do not pass independent secondary. It's lots of "Adds Patton" quotes. Graywalls (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Cha Cha Cha (Bruno Mars song)

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

Article created in a rush, filled with album reviews that lack any substance, most of them being one paragraph short.

Chart positions don't grant a song notability, plus they are top 30 and over.

No awards received and not independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: @MarioSoulTruthFan: Note that not all non-singles have to win awards to be notable. I will say that this is what MC-123 is known for, just overall creating music-related articles. No opinion, though. Red Shell Momentum 01:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Red Shell Momentum 01:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Merge to The Romantic (album). The charting does provide some notability, but there appears to be little coverage of the song independent of the album to substantiate it. Merge or redirect is fine. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

99 Percent (group)

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

Existing sources in article are promotional or unreliable. Found only one article on Billboard.com and no other SIGCOV. No results on GBooks, Newspapers.com, or JSTOR. No evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC. Was deprodded by creator in 2016, who may be a COI account as they never edited anything else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and California. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTE and WP:NMUSIC Episteme Aletheia (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete take my word for it, user:TenPoundHammer does their research. I'd say that WP:NMUSIC does fail here, though I'm not sure about the COI, but again, I think if TenPoundHammer is suggesting as much then I'd at least be inclined to think that they are right. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 03:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Premier Guitar

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

Non-notable magazine. --Viennese Waltz 16:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Iowa. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete - No sourcing. Creator MusicLover650 is a blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The magazine can promote itself. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete teeny tiny magazine that is clearly not WP:NMAGAZINE passing. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

OMusic TV

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

Fails GNG. No SIGCOV in reliable sources. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, United Kingdom, and Television. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Girth (album)

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

Unsourced since November 2006. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG; Encyclopedia Metallum is not a reliable source. Can be redirected to Winter's Bane. thejiujiangdragon 🔥🐉 01:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United States of America, and Ohio. thejiujiangdragon 🔥🐉 01:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I only find Vampster [de]' review: Geschichte (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Winter's Bane#Discography as WP:ATD. There's almost no coverage of this album, just sources showing that WP:ITEXISTS or not WP:RS like WP:BLOGs. WidgetKid ^Converse 05:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Stand Up (For the Champions)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC; unsourced since October 2006. Can be redirected to Stand Up (Right Said Fred album) as a WP:ATD. thejiujiangdragon 🔥🐉 23:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Sports, and United Kingdom. thejiujiangdragon 🔥🐉 23:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep per my attempt at WP:HEY. Not sure if it's enough, but I found a few sources. It seems pretty well established that this is used by many sports teams and leagues around the world. WidgetKid ^Converse 01:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep - assuming in good faith that they had an "ichiban" number 1 hit in Japan, the song passes. Bearian (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Dang it, @Bearian, you had to say the magic word (ASSume ). I can't find an independent source to indicate they actually hit #1 in Japan. It's on all sorts of things published by the band, but it doesn't line-up with what's on List of Oricon number-one singles of 2002 (ref), nor on J-Wave's 2002 chart. Maybe most telling - the WP JP article doesn't have that fact. I think we may need to remove it from the article. WidgetKid ^Converse 04:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Manu Kaushish

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

Appears to fail WP:NOPROMO and WP:NBIO. Amigao (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, India, Delhi, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Significant coverage of his business ventures is not the same thing as significant coverage of him. If there were a few more sources specifically about Kaushish like this one, it might make sense to keep this as an article. Most of the reliable sources here only mention him as tangential to the subject. Then there are a lot of inappropriate links that make the article read like spam. Some editor could probably clean this up if they wanted to, but in its current state, the article should be deleted. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I checked the first 10 references, and those that contained sigcov were not independent. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Per above. Zuck28 (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete - we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Amazing Stroopwafels

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

Love the name, but I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in English or Dutch. Has been in CAT:NN since 2011. Full of dubious WP:PEACOCK claims like "classic in Dutch pop music history". Zero results on Newspapers.com or JSTOR, and I was unable to access the lone hit on GBooks. Despite a long discography, these all seem to be obscure independent releases for which I could find no proof of existence outside of Discogs. I don't feel there's even a valid claim to notability per WP:BAND, but I'm still open to the possibility there might be some Dutch-language sources hiding in a place I couldn't access on my own. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Netherlands. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. They are a real band and lots of fun. They are certainly noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. But if no one bothers to source it, should it exist? Even their Dutch article only has 5 sources. If no one is going to bother to clean up this article, we should follow our own policies and delete it. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:NOTCLEANUP. If they are noteworthy enough for Wikipedia, then the article should stay. FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 17:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment They're (at least) mentioned in 566 Dutch newspaper articles on Delpher (), but I can't say if that includes articles with significant coverage of the band as I haven't really browsed the results. toweli (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep per above. I found seven books with previews on GBooks. Coastal Environments in Popular Song is even in English, and though the reference there is too brief to use, it does say the band had "moderate success in the 80s and 90s." Which book wasn't opening for you?

SenshiSun (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment - the subject clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO#2 with a single in a WP:GOODCHARTS national chart: . ResonantDis_tortion 22:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO. They also pass GNG, as their biography is included on NPO Radio 2 site, they were the subject of a documentary that was shown on TV. They were covered in Maxazine (not sure if it is reliable). Kelob2678 (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Incelcore

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

Seems like most (although not all) of the sources mention it in passing, and also talk about the "Incel subculture" as a whole rather than the genre. ILoveSmallEdits (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Merge whatever consensus determines to be valuable into Incel, and delete the rest. The article isn't badly written, and it's decently cited, so I think whatever isn't already present on the Incel page should be considered for adding; but I don't really feel all that strongly about it. Foxtrot620 (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  Comment I agree that's a good alternative to deletion as there's some valuable information in this article. ILoveSmallEdits (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep This is inaccurate, the 2026 pitchfork source breaks down the genre as a rock microgenre that emerged from 4chan culture. They had mentioned the genre previously in 2020 as well. Then there is sources by the Canadian Anti Hate Network which specifically state that the style has not much connection to the incel subculture so it would make no sense to put it on that article when the only connection is the name. Would it make sense to move the citations calling films like Fight Club incelcore to that article?

This subject is also notable per the sources from the Quietus and even the Guardian. You are being disingenuous to say the sources do not talk about the scene or music given three of them which were made by anti hate networks specifically discuss the history of the scene, its music and the virginfest event. The article is specifically about the term “incelcore” which encompasses forms of internet slang and a rock microgenre as per the Pitchfork source. A merger would make no sense. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. As the nominator said, most of the sources in this article are about the larger topic. The opening sentence underscores the confusion by defining the subject as an "Internet microgenre of rock music and online subculture".

Is the article about the online subculture or the music genre? It's not covering either topic very well. It seems like a bricolage of random facts rather than a coherent article. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment This is a bizarre nitpick when articles like gothic rock make mention of the subculture as well, many genres are also subcultures just see punk rock, post-punk, emo, scene… etc. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability. This article is allowed to be on the site Aradicus77 (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment If the article is to be deleted I recommend a move redirect to a section at Internet music Aradicus77 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep I think it's worth keeping because the idea that these sources only mention it in passing isn't really true. If you look at the Pitchfork and Canadian Anti-Hate Network refs, they aren't just talking about incels in general; they are specifically analyzing the music, the "Virginfest" event, and how the sound actually works. It's its own specific music scene (which is quite popular on TikTok) with its own history, and merging it into a page about a broad subculture would just make things more confusing, especially since the sources point out that incelcore music and the incel ideology aren't always the same thing. Plus, the term is clearly sticking around in culture if major papers like The Guardian are using it to describe other bands or movies. It meets the notability requirements because there's enough deep coverage here to show it's a real and documented phenomenon.

Miiversal (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep incelcore has become a large subgenre in recent years. There are also quite a few sources that mention it in more than passing. No need to delete NP2026 (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep, passes GNG, an example of RS is the article Incelcore, l’estetica del fallimento ('Incelcore: the aesthetics of failure') from Italian newspaper Il manifesto, and the article also cites a book, Incel in una stanza-Il cinema dei maschi brutti, soli e cattivi, which also extensively examines the genre. Cavarrone 08:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

No Survivors (song)

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

Does not establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. The only non-primary source cited is The Christian Beat, which is a fan news blog rather than a reliable, independent source providing significant coverage. The remaining references are primary or routine directory/database listings. Veggiegalaxy (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Veggiegalaxy (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. Red Shell Momentum 03:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Some new edits and sources were added since my nomination. The additional sources do not meaningfully change the notability assessment. The two K-Love pieces, while one is dedicated to the song, come from a Christian radio network with a promotional relationship to the artists it covers. Jesus Freak Hideout is a niche fan review site with questionable WP:RS status, and the piece is an album review rather than dedicated song coverage. Chart placements alone do not establish notability per WP:NSONG. The article still lacks substantive coverage in genuinely independent reliable sources. Veggiegalaxy (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The amount of notable information in this article could easily be summarized with a few words in the artist's main article. There's not enough significant coverage of the song in reliable sources to justify a separate article. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Jeremy Camp discography, which I think would be most appropriate here. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 19:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Merge / Redirect to Jeremy Camp discography, as there are sources here, but none of the WP:SIGCOV needed to establish notability, and this is the best WP:ATD option under the circumstances. Alansohn (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Jeremy Camp discography#Singles. The charting is a good start, but unfortunately everything else is WP:PROMO or WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WidgetKid ^Converse 01:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Resist Records

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

Failure of WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Business, Companies, and Australia. Graywalls (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete small record label failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Indie labels are difficult when it comes to meeting NCORP. This isn't a fly by night label but I still cannot locate anything meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Sejal Kumar

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

Subject is a YouTuber who does not pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. With 1 acting credit in a non-notable web series (as mentioned in the article), the subject fails WP:NACTRESS as well. The references are WP:NEWSORGINDIA and give no indication of the subject's notability. The subject seems to have a high follower count across YouTube but that alone doesn't amount to notability. Retro music11 (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Music, Entertainment, Fashion, Asia, and India. Retro music11 (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete: YouTube/Instagram stats don't lend notability. All sources succumb to NEWSORGINDIA. Fails in GNG and WP:VRS due to the lack of SIGCOV in independent, secondary sources. BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral: Hindustan Times and Deccan Chronicle sources are SIGCOV and reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply - In this case, it's Hindustan Times Brunch specifically, a buzz edition. The source here carries a promotional tone instead of journalistic coverage. The Deccan Chronicle source is used to validate that the subject's 'videos are usually centered around fashion, skits, singing and vlogs.' In both cases, there's no indication of the subject's notability. I've considered those before nominating this article that serves as a PROMO for the subject.Sources including WP:NEWSORGINDIA and other nonWP:RS across which the subject is covered may imply that the subject, a YouTuber, her YouTube channel and self-published videos do exist. However, that existence does not amount to notability. Retro music11 (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. It's hard to see how this article makes Wikipedia a better resource. The article mainly seems like an excuse to link to a YouTube page. There is some media coverage of the subject, but nothing that could reasonably be described as significant. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

V Flower

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

I am starting to notice that a lot of these articles we have on individual Vocaloids fail WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG (see my extended searching and reasoning here). As products, they are required to have significant coverage of them specifically, sustained over time. Not only do most of them, including this one, not have that, but also a lack of coverage in general.

Focusing of V Flower, this Vocaloid fails GNG and NPRODUCT. Preliminary source searches in both English and Japanese do not demonstrate much that is usable. There is absolutely nothing in English reliable sources, and in Japanese, everything is routine coverage from around the time of the products release. Google Scholar did not turn up anything of value either. Nothing in the article at present contributes to notability, either (9 sources, all primary and half of them Twitter posts). Even if NPRODUCT was not in consideration here, I still don't think there is enough to constitute GNG. Routine coverage of announcement does not help at all. And if you want additional arguments as to why a separate article probably isn't due regardless of notability, here you go.

The only semi-claim to fame for V Flower is by being used in Goodbye Sengen... however, Vocaloids are software, and don't fall under the part of WP:NMUSICIAN that suggests a notable/charting song could help make a musician notable. There is no clause that what a software is used in makes the software automatically notable. Rather, it'd contribute to the notability of Chinozo. Assuming either of these are actually notable, but that's outside of the debate here.

Overall, V Flower fails NPRODUCT rather bluntly, and should be redirected to List of Vocaloid products. I will continue doing notability checks on other Vocaloids, but for now (today), this will be the last I bring to AfD. λ NegativeMP1 04:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 04:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Vocaloid products. Goodbye Sengen is notable but the voice bank doesn't have any claims of independent notability. A redirect works out for covering specifics of this vocaloid. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Half of the sources on that page are from Twitter. Redirecting is doing this bad content a favor. Trumpetrep (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm slightly confused by this vote; the redirect still serves a purpose by going to where the subject would be discussed regardless. λ NegativeMP1 16:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm no Wikipedia expert, but I'm listening to a Flower song now, and came here to learn about the history of this vocaloid. The single song you mentioned is far from the only Flower song; this one by Kariki Bear has 72 million views on YouTube. I'd think the page is warranted because the vocaloid is both a piece of technology and a fictional character that is hugely popular. ~2026-17042-36 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Popularity =/= notable, by Wikipedia's standards. Also, to be brutally honest, something like the Vocaloid wiki would probably have a more detailed article than we could ever have while adhering to policy. The sourcing is not there, and the page is horrible as is. λ NegativeMP1 22:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to List of Vocaloid products. Star Mississippi 01:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Utatane Piko

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. An alternative to my wording can be found at User:NegativeMP1/Vocaloid_notability_checks#Utatane_Piko (for reference, I'm starting to run notability checks on Vocaloid articles), but the bottom line is: like other subjects, Vocaloids need to meet WP:GNG, with significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources beyond routine announcements of release. Additionally, they have to meet NPRODUCT unless they are established as notable characters with real world impact first and product second, which only applies to a select few. Utatane Piko is not one of them.

For the actual source analysis: there is little to no coverage of this Vocaloid in both English and Japanese sourcing. In English, there is only one source from the time of it's release , but I'm not sure if it is a reliable source. In Japanese, while I could be missing something due to not being a native speaker, all coverage I can find appears to be merely re-reporting this primary source announcing the software release, around that same time as well (the 2010 release). Sustained coverage or reception towards the product/character itself does not appear to exist. Confusion with Piko (singer) also doesn't help. And regarding what is in the article at present: one is a user-generated video that is non-notable, one is a regurgitation of the announcement, one is a primary disclaimer (?), and the other is a tweet.

I'd also like to make a WP:NOPAGE argument: even if somehow notable, I think it's quite obvious that there's not much meat here for an article. And I doubt there ever will be, as the product appears to be discontinued and has been for six years. We do have basic verifiable information of it though, which makes it a candidate to redirected to List of Vocaloid products, as an alternative to deletion. λ NegativeMP1 19:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 19:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Music, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Vocaloid products per nom. No real coverage on this topic, and is better discussed with others as a set. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep – The subject meets WP:GNG. There is sufficient independent coverage in Japanese music and tech media (e.g., ITmedia, Mynavi, AV Watch). Kyunde (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
All of that is routine coverage from around the time of release that does not say much beyond basic specifications. It's not reviews or any coverage of the subject beyond that it exists. It's basically primary sourcing since it's all repeating the same announcement info. It is not significant coverage, and it still fails WP:GNG, WP:NPRODUCT and WP:SUSTAINED. λ NegativeMP1 20:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Vocaloid products as a ATD seems Ok, the sources presented above seems unsustained and seems more like a press release, did find a wiki page about the singer, who provided the voice bank for the subject.Lorraine Crane (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

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.

Regular temperament

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

This article cites no sources. It is entirely original research. It is a GeoCities page resurrected on Wikipedia.

In 2018, User:David J Wilson wisely suggested this article should be redirected to another article about tuning. I redirected it to equal temperament. User:Epixix undid the revision. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The article has no source and gives an unusual definition or "regular temperament." Yet, the concept itself is real and important. As David J. Wilson writes in the talk page of the article,

The traditional definition of "regular temperament" is not simply a historical curiosity, now superseded by the microtonal community's version. It's the one currently given in Mark Lindley's entry Temperaments in New Grove and Jeremy Montagu's entry, Temperament, in the Oxford Companion to Music. It's also the only one I've been able to find in any treatises devoted to the subject of scales and temperament—including Barbour's Tuning and Temperament: A Historical Survey (1951), [...] Donahue's A Guide to Musical Temperament (2005), [...] and Dolata's Meantone Temperaments on Lutes and Viols (2016). There's also a large body of relatively recent musical literature which, while not exactly being treatises on temperament itself, do nevertheless deal with it to some extent, and adopt exactly the same definition of "regular temperament" as the aforementioned treatises—Duffin's How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony And Why You Should Care (2007) and the Dolmetsch music dictionary, for example.

He had written earlier that

[The article] concentrates instead on a meaning given to the term more recently by a relatively small number of musical theorists who appear to have been working chiefly in the area of microtonal music.

The whole appears to be typical of microtonalists... So, I don't think the article should be deleted, rather that it should be rewritten, using the sources quoted above. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that great response, and those wonderful citations.

The word regular is a modifier of the more essential word: temperament. That's why David suggested a merge with a better article. I still think that's the wiser course of action here, given the imbalance of resources. There just doesn't seem to be enough interest in nurturing these articles into quality references. In the absence of such care, blunt instruments like redirects and merges are effective. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

"Regular" of course is a modifier of "temperament" – as are "equal," "meatone," and several others. Should all these be reduced to mere redirects? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

It depends on the strength of the article. The equal temperament article is a hodge-podge that spills over into 12 equal temperament. The Meantone temperament suffers from the usual defects of original research and excessive charts.

The health of all of the articles in the Template:Musical tuning is poor. I would like to see them all improved. This is part of what prompted my posts at the Music Theory project talk page. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Having read through several of the sources above (including my own copy of Duffin), I find myself wondering if there actually is much to write about regular temperaments on their own. Most mentions of the term, even substantial, seem to define it as a broad category of temperament, perhaps too broad to be a useful level of distinction between the main article and its individual subsiduary temperaments: Trumpetrep's suggestion of a ~~merge~~ redirect seems to merit further investigation. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete - everybody knows that we have never published original research. Bearian (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Intergalactic FM

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

Aside from the 2009 The Guardian article, which is bylined, there are no other articles (the two FACT articles are not bylined) that contribute to notability in this article. It looks to fail the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and Netherlands. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Speedrunz (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep Fact is reliable, so I don't think that a lack of a byline is an issue. The radio station is Dutch, so it is reasonable to assume that most coverage is in Dutch, for example, I found this paywalled article that is probably about the station. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Legends Magazine

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only one source cited, and I have not had any luck trying to retrieve/rescue it. Cannot find any other reliable (independent) sources and I'm slightly concerned about the COI, given that the article's creator and primary editor is also the founder of the magazine in question. Veggiegalaxy (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this should be deleted per our guidelines. It's not Wikipedia's job to archive the internet. I think there's a site for that, but I forget its name... Trumpetrep (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete-not finding SIGCOV from online sources at least to suggest notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Vinyl Group

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

Spam from sock puppeteer for non notable company. Ref bombed to routine announcements, listings, short mentions and primary. Part of a big PR push of Josh Simmons. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep - Plenty of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (eg. Australian Financial Review Billboard The Australian Mumbrella) - Samuel Wiki (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kelob2678 (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Gimme What I Don't Know (I Want)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not seeing coverage of this outside of the album. Laun chba ller 23:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Red Shell Momentum 23:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom; please ping me if sources to the contrary appear. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep, no major changes since last deletion discussion. However if a consensus against keeping the page emerges this time, it should be redirected to The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2 as an ATD. मल्ल (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NSONG as it has charted. If sourcing is interpreted very liberally, one can argue that a few of the album reviews satisfy WP:100WORDS and that this is a GNG pass, that coverage of the song is confined to album reviews in itself is not a disqualifying factor. Finally, this page has a "Good Article" label, and I don't see how the deletion would improve the encyclopedia. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Saying how an article should not be deleted because it improves the encyclopedia is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Being a GA also does not mean immunity from deletion: GAs, and even FAs, have been deleted or redirected/merged in the past for various reasons. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The main policy-based argument is that it charted in South Korea, so it is reasonable to presume that there is some in-depth coverage in Korean; this presumption cannot be realistically rebutted, as there are no editors who are knowledgeable enough and have access to South Korean music media.

Regarding WP:ATA, I checked the essay and, to my surprise, it mentions GA only in two instances, both contain the implicit assumption that GAs are presumed notable: While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument comparing with ... Good article ... makes a much more credible case. and If a user is disrupting the encyclopedia by ... continually nominating good articles for deletion. The GAs I saw deleted are usually about fictional characters, they have no SNG and, in general, AfD is harsh toward in-universe descriptions. An example of a recent AfD similar to this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindful (song), which was kept even though the page failed NSONG, not to mention GNG. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep found this discussion through the DYK nom. I initially intended to !vote delete, but Kelob2678 makes some good points which I haven't seen anyone comment against yet. I also don't see how this article's deletion would improve the project. Johnson524 21:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Nueva Iberica

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

There does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV of nueva iberica as a music genre. Google Scholar has two hits for "nueva Iberica" + music, one is about chess and the other about sugarcane production. A regular google search gets hits on Wikiwand and the Wikipedia page List of electronic music genres where the term was added by User:Splendid entry who also created Nueva Iberica. I can't see other relevant hits. In addition the text appears to be AI-generated, has very few sources, and the third paragraph explicitly states that the term is not widely used (hence the article is WP:OR: Although the specific term "Nueva Iberica" is not widely used in the published literature, it is employed here descriptively to summarise musical practices that are independently documented in these and other journalistic sources. The article was previously nominated for speedy deletion and PROD but contested by author, see discussion on Talk:Nueva_Iberica. Lijil (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for speedy deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep may be rewritten and enreached with additional sources, but AI must be removed. And so the buck stops (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

What sources support the notability of this topic? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Pezzi della Sera

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

Failed WP:NSONG. I couldn't find any coverage about this studio album. ROY is WAR Talk! 15:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Italy. ROY is WAR Talk! 15:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

Pezzi della Sera, as I'm sure you read in the article, is an album by Marco Castello, a musical artist that is becoming more and more important in Italy. I'll admit, he's not at a so high level of fame, but neither are many artists whose albums are listed in Wikipedia articles.

Thanks for taking care of Wikipedia!

Dre DrefromItaly (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@DrefromItaly: why not create an article for Marco Castello then? I see your contributions are related to albums of the artist but not the artist himself. It's usually best to first create an article for the artist, and then for items of their discography if warranted. Skyshiftertalk 02:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I've thought about it. It all came down to the time I had available to work on Wikipedia lately. DrefromItaly (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Marco may be gaining fame in Italy, but this article does not presently meet the notability guidelines.Trumpetrep (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep Found these reviews . All four are bylined. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

delete I don't see notability for this album, no charted singles, no critical reviews. The one source is more about the person than this album. The individual MIGHT be notable, this musical album isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment If there are concerns about the reliability of the reviews, there are reviews from Ondarock and Rockit (website) [it]. Both outlets have existed for more than two decades and have received some third-party notice. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep: I think @Kelob2678: should include the reviews he found in the article.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Leaning Delete-finding multiple reviews like 43, 44, 45, 46, but most seems to be either customer reviews or actual reviews but does not demonstrate anything particularly notable like awards or achievements, leaving it here nevertheless for those more familiar with the genre. Redirect to the musician is not yet possible as no article yet has been made. Lorraine Crane (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
@Lorraine Crane:, If reviews are present, why can this not be kept? There is no need for an album to win awards to have a Wikipedia page. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep, passes GNG per multiple bylined reviews linked above, such as those from Ondarock and Rockit. Side note, based on the relevant Italian Wikipedia page and a cursory search, the artist easily passes GNG even beyond reviews (, , , and so on). I'll probably create a page about him later. Cavarrone 10:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep — Multiple independent reviews cited above make this album meets WP:GNG. Pridemanty (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In the spirit of IAR and RELIST, the latter of which does note that discussions can be relisted for a third (or further) time (emphasis added), I'm relisting for a final time instead of closing as "no consensus". I think closure is still premature given that there has been no significant analysis of the arguement for GNG proposed by Kelob2678. Trumpetrep and Royiswariii: as those who commented before they could see the proposed sources, could we please have some analysis in order to find a concerte consensus, or a concrete lack thereof, and put this to bed for good?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Nothing in the discussion has changed my opinion of the nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep the Ondarock and Rockit sources are sufficient in my view, passes WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 20:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Kelob2678 and Cavarrone's review finding. Having reviews from reliable sources are enough to pass notability. The page should survive at AfD now. --SatnaamIN (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

Music

Ipecac Recordings

Cha Cha Cha (Bruno Mars song)

99 Percent (group)

Premier Guitar

OMusic TV

Girth (album)

Stand Up (For the Champions)

Manu Kaushish

Amazing Stroopwafels

Incelcore

No Survivors (song)

Resist Records

Sejal Kumar

V Flower

Utatane Piko

Regular temperament

Intergalactic FM

Legends Magazine

Vinyl Group

Gimme What I Don't Know (I Want)

Nueva Iberica

Pezzi della Sera

Music Proposed deletions

Related Articles