Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZephyrMusic: Difference between revisions

ZephyrMusic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable music artist that does not seem to meet any of the criteria listed at WP:MUSICBIO.

• Most of the articles listed are from non-reliable sources ("wikifamouspeople", "musicalive.net", "chunedesk") or are short articles that are essentially press releases about new music. The Voix Du Nord seems to be having technical difficulties; I can't even access them nine out of ten times without an error.
• No album on the national music chart, no record certified gold
• No non-trivial coverage of a concert tour
• No album release from a major record label
• etc, the list goes on.

Furthermore, his own website is hosted on and has a subdomain with Wix - while not strictly in the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines, a notable musician would not be using a free site such as that.

The subject has been deleted as non-notable three times in his own Home country: fr:ZephyrMusic ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 22:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : The person who proposed the Afd forgot to introduce the first point of WP:MUSICBIO

"1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." This musician answers with the sources ^[1][2][3][4]. I specify that 2 of these newspapers, La Voix du Nord and L'Avenir have their Wikipedia page here. It meets the first criterion by appearing in several reliable sources and is therefore eligible, the sources cited by the previous comment are just used to introduce additional information generally already supported by secondary sources.

Concerning Wix, the author is not objective because he cannot say with certainty that absolutely no notable musician uses Wix, should we question the notability of musicians who do not even use a website? I don't think so, this remark shows how weak the arguments for deletions are.

It would be useful to specify that this musician was deleted from French Wikipedia because according to the deletion history the sources were only music sites, the third time the page was deleted because it was whitewashed by its author, sources have appeared since and as the author of the comment said the deletion standards are not the same on this Wikipedia, this argument does not show once again that an article on this musician has no place here. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first bullet point is about the first point of WP:MUSICBIO. The majority of sources listed are blog-like sites, including the fourth one you yourself listed, and the third source is just a video. Really only those first two would be considered reliable sources, but both of the articles aren't about him in his notability as a musician but as local general interest pieces about him overcoming his disability. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 15:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the 3rd source I see a video and a text written by L'Avenir and therefore a reliable source. These three sources respond well to what 1. of WP:MUSICBIO requires, this person is therefore remarkable because he meets one of the criteria well. . SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The two French articles are fine, but this individual doesn't meet notability for musicians. "He has a disability and music helps him" is the extent of the articles. He's not charted, has won no awards, no critical notice. He's a musician, yes, but doesn't meet our notability standards. People make music, but aren't all notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]