Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music

WP:DSMUSIC

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Music|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Music. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Music

Joey Pearson

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC, all coverage found in WP:BEFORE was either WP:ROUTINE or from primary sources. I am also bundling the singer's albums, all of which have been unreferenced since creation more than 15 years ago:

Coeusin (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, and California Coeusin (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable singer. No sourcing found outside of social media. Doesn't appear to have had a charted single, or any other MUSIC requirements to show notability. Sourcing now in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Megan

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

The subject of this article is only talked about in terms of her husband and her late son (who is primarily mentioned because of his dad). As notability is not inherited this subject does not have any sources of her own. In my before search I couldn't find anything else. I would be okay with a redirect to Aidonia Moritoriko (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Internet, and Jamaica. Moritoriko (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aidonia. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adonia: no independent notability, but some of the content re son might be worth adding. PamD 08:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ToTheBones

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

Utter lack of WP:SIGCOV. Potentially UPE. jellyfish ✉ 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. jellyfish ✉ 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above, lack of significant, reliable coverage. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 04:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group looks likely to meet WP:MUSIC with coverage from, e.g., The Guardian ([1]), NME ([2]), The Line of Best Fit ([3]), and Drowned in Sound ([4]). I doubt this exhausts their 2008-era coverage (going to paper probably necessary for much more). Chubbles (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XYZ Entertainments

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The article lacks significant, independent, and reliable sources that establish notability. Existing references are mostly blogs, user-generated content and trivial mentions. No clear demonstration of lasting impact or verifiable prominence as a corporate entity. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Africa. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough sources to establish notability. Darkm777 (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mondo Music Corporation

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article is unsourced and reads like a promotional stub. No evidence of widespread notability, impact, or independent media attention. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Africa. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at the very least return to userspace: This article has been tagged with the citations needed for WP:V since 2018. The current references are unfortunately inadequate upon first inspection: Ref 1 is probably primary, Ref 2 I can't confirm as it's a book and Ref 3 is unavailable. With less than 40 edits since creation in 2006, I think this article either needs to be deleted or returned to userspace. 11WB (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, I would suggest a redirect to one of the labels' artists. Unfortunately, the articles for Amayenge, Jordan Katembula and Leo "K'millian" Moyo are of questionable quality with both structural, spacing and referencing issues apparent in each. 11WB (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough sources to establish notability. The artists on the label also have questionable notability.Darkm777 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Green Monkey Records

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

I do not believe this indie record label passes WP:GNG. The article as written is mostly referenced to primary sources or blogs. I could not find much coverage in my own search, just a couple short articles from local newspapers found on newspapers.com. Mbdfar (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of finding WP:IRS and was able to find one today from The Rocket magazine https://washingtondigitalnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=RCT19860401.1.9&srpos=2&e=-------en-20-RCT-1--txt-txIN-green+monkey+records------ I assume it is acceptable. If not please let me know. I will add more content and WP:IRS as time permits. I am fairly new here as far as contributing. Otheriver (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do consider that a WP:RS, but more will be needed to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Consider WP:AUD – The Rocket at the time was a small, Seattle-based music magazine. My search also turned up some additional The Rocket articles, but are you able to find additional sources that cover the subject in-depth? Mbdfar (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure yet. I'm still at the beginning of my research. I was going to check a Seattle Times article the same day, but it was behind a paywall. I have some other places I need to check and read yet. Otheriver (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough sources to establish notability given that there is less media available online from that time frame. Also the label had a few established acts. Darkm777 (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these sources that establish notability? Mbdfar (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had tagged this in 2023 and see nothing that has taken place since that time to establish notability (a quick BEFORE search finds nothing meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. As far as "there is less media available online from that time frame" - what time frame? The 1980s? We have archives and I searched those as well. Didn't find what is necessary to show WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Chan (singer)

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

This page is mostly in a language other than English, and the singer does not appear to be noteworthy enough for an article with few listeners and press articles Dahawk04 (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Television, and Myanmar. Skynxnex (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment appears to be a personal attack against Chan Chan, which is both inappropriate and unfounded. Chan Chan is an internationally followed artist with millions of followers, many of whom speak and understand English. Dismissing her relevance based on language or selective metrics ignores her actual reach, fanbase, and cultural impact. Let's keep the conversation respectful and based on facts. 93.69.21.30 (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several articles with her as the main subject are found in the sources, meeting WP:SIGCOV. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Really? I was shocked to see that singer Chan Chan's article is nominated for AfD. Chan Chan is one of the most successful singers in my country and has also served as a judge on Myanmar Idol. Only legacy singers and highly accomplished musicians are invited to serve as judges in national singing competitions. This AfD nomination seems unclear and may be a random disruptive act targeting other editors. Here are some sources that clearly establish her notability: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the provided sources are more than enough. Whether or not they are English is not a matter of concern. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly well-known in her country with plenty of reliable sources. The article can be improved instead. Admins should view this nomination with suspicion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calliope: Pittsburgh Folk Music Society

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

No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, and Pennsylvania. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough sources to establish notability. The sources are their own website, which is considered primary.Darkm777 (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Real Magic TV

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Previously deleted, appears to have been recreated with no improvements or proof of notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The return of this article was not because it was recreated, but because the original article as it existed before the PROD was restored as-is after the PROD was contested by Magicfan2025 (talk · contribs) at RFU. Their rationale for having the article restored falls under some of the arguments that would not necessarily fly at AfD, but PROD objections are not required to be P&G-based. (I have no opinion on the article or its notability.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Regardless, the article was reinstated with no improvements which is why I started this AfD. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Magic and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both failing notability as well as a failure of WP:NOTDATABASE in the article's current form. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough sources to establish notability. They are primary, from IMDB and Hulu bio.Darkm777 (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-checking on the actual article, shows most sources cited as reference seems inaccessible, but unsure if just my browser, did it on two different browsers still no go, my web searches so far have yet to find any SIGCOV to support the article.Lorraine Crane (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Dream Show 4: Dream The Future

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

This article is about an upcoming event that is completely unreferenced and makes no claim of notability. The contents of the article may be moved to NCT Dream, the band organising this event, if deemed necessary, or draftification as alternatives. If it was notable, then there would be clear referencing and evidence of planning: which there isn't. The Troutinator - Slap me | 10:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom $Destinyokhiria 💬$ 19:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NTOUR. So far the tour has only been announced and for now there is no media coverage of any specific impact. That may change if happenings on the tour get media attention later, and if so the article can be recreated at that time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sonat-Verlag

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

Cannot find any significant coverage on them. Darkm777 (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Business. Darkm777 (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Destinyokhiria 💬

20:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Spoke Records

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

This is an unusual one. This was a page for two record labels. I was going to nominate it after the founder of one of them was deleted. Then, Cielquiparle added references and removed the one I was going to nominate. The problem is that none of them meeet WP:NCORP. Broken Spoke Records probably only had 10 releases in total. The added references are about a performer and only mention the label. Geschichte (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article is about a 1980s-90s publisher in the United States. There are cited two sources which are about artists whom this publisher featured, and those articles each describe the publisher in a few sentences. For pre-internet sourcing on paper newspapers, I have lower expectations for what constitutes GNG, and I feel this passes. Also, I have lower expectations for how much content we need for Wikipedia articles on publishers, because I favor the editorial practice of being more inclusive of Wikipedia content on publishers based on the essay Wikipedia:Notability (media). I recognize that this article could only ever be a few sentences, but describing publishers is a specialty that I think works well for Wikipedia. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't have such a "specialty". This label was nowhere near influential. Geschichte (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have enough reliable sources. I might have agreed to keep if the label had notable releases with reviews, but it doesn't appear so.Darkm777 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singa (karaoke)

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

Article about a "karaoke streaming service", not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:CORP. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain defined notability criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage in media -- but this is referenced mainly to primary sources, such as the company's own self-published website about itself and press releases issued by another company that this company struck a business contract with, that are not support for notability -- and what there is for proper third-party coverage comes entirely from limited circulation business trade magazines that are largely just rewriting the press releases, rather than GNG-worthy coverage or analysis in real media.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the company from having to pass GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on stronger sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Finland. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found beyond press releases, same items as what's used for sourcing now in the article. Not enough sourcing found for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The TechCrunch article is the only thing I could find even remotely independent. There's really nothing to say about this company that can't be found within a couple clicks on the company's own website. -- LWG ^talk 16:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete laughably bad spam.--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Destinyokhiria (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Voice Awards

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

Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources covering this. (The article on Lithuanian Wikipedia is also unreferenced) ApexParagon (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Television, Awards, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamani Srinath

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Winning an award does not grant inherent notability. Sources are mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Music, and Indiana. CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per nom. SachinSwami (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nomination Destinyokhiria (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award is really "the highest Indian recognition given to people in the field of performing arts.", then this loks like notability. PamD 15:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that she has an article in Telugu Wikipedia - I have merged her two records in Wikidata, so it now shows as a link from the en.wiki article. PamD 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Wikidata merge. I understand your contention but do not believe notability is inherent for simply winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 OK, looking at WP:MUSICBIO, criteria 7 and 8 appear to be met, unless you consider that 8 only applies to western popular music. PamD 19:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think something on the level the award is being claimed to be would fall under that criteria so Western/India would have no bearing. What I am saying is that even with an award, we still need significant coverage. Just winning an award does not guarantee notability. It even specifically says "may" be notable under that criteria. The sources we have are pour such as this (presented in the comment below) which is clearly unreliable as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, Nagamani Srinath was also honored with the Rajyotsava Award in 1998, the second-highest civilian honor conferred by the Karnataka Government[12]. Furthermore, according to an article published in The New Indian Express on June 22, 2015, she was awarded the Sangita Kala Acharya Award by the Madras Music Academy, Chennai, for her outstanding contributions to the field of Carnatic music[13].-SachinSwami (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source she has won some other notable awards such as Karnataka Kalashree. Also she has significant coverage in The Hindu and Deccan Herald.Afstromen (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Afstromen, all the sources I included don’t fully support the claim; they are all weak. Mentioning an award alone isn’t enough; you need sources that clearly reference Nagamani Srinath’s work, like a review. For example, in Akaal: The Unconquered, when I checked, all the sources you added were weak. Later, I searched and added 5 reviews in the Reception section, which are sufficient to fully support the film and pass WP:GNG. Though the rules for films and individuals differ, reviews clearly referencing the work are sufficient for support. (I have no intention of misleading editors, so I apologize.) SachinSwami (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen: you duplicated one of the sources which could indicate you did not look closely enough at them to see they are mainly routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Are you talking about The Hindu article or both?Afstromen (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You listed the DH twice in your comment. Both the DH and The Hindu are her giving the information by the way. Interviews and all content provided by her so not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No, I listed the source initially to point the awards. It was not my intention to list it twice or to give the impression that the sources were different. Afstromen (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that now. Thanks for the explanation. I still maintain that neither of those are independent. I would also think if she won the "highest award" as claimed, there would be more than just NEWSORGINDIA and a few interview type references. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 04:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Endorse PamD above; subject meets WP:MUSICBIO#7-8; also this bio suggests that #11 (and to some extent #12) can also be met. There's more biographical information about the subject in (Rajagopalan 1990, pp. 171) though with limited online preview. Also, the use of "may" in MUSICBIO, to my understanding, means that the fulfilled criteria should be verifiable in reliable independent sources, and not that a significant coverage is required in addition. WeWake (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address the rebuttal as well? There is no such thing as inherent notability. The "may" is there because it indicates the subject is likely notable, not that they "are" notable. Otherwise, why include may when it can be replaced with something more definite. Note WP:BASIC ("presumed notable" but not "are notable"), which also covers "one event" which may apply as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, For a decades long career that's been recognized with several notable awards is not a case of WP:BLP1E in my opinion–the award makes it easier to obtain some news coverage but is not the only basis of notability here. For niche-musicians, traditional coverage might be hard to come by (as is the case here, though I found one tertiary source above). Nevertheless, my two cents is that the subject is "worthy of notice" or "note" through a verifiable statements capturing several subject-specific understanding (of the community) of notability, and should be kept with {{Sources exist}} if existing are insufficient for a BLP. The SNGs allow us to contextualize the requirements of WP:BASIC and avoid a renewed reinterpretation with every article. The use of 'may' in that language broadly captures that these policies are consensus driven and evolve, and thus it cannot (possibly ever) prescribe a definitive criteria of notability. — WeWake (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worthy of notice would have more than just mentions or unreliable sourcing. I would agree a sources exist tag could be used, but that is assuming sources exist. They do not. All we have is what has been presented which falls short. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royal College Choir

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

WP:SCHOOLCRUFT There is no indication as to why this school choir qualifies as notable. Obi2canibe (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Royal College, Colombo. Dan arndt (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Royal College, Colombo article. QEnigma (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Changed to keep from merge. New content and sources/references added ([14], [15]) QEnigma (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No objection in principle to the merger suggestion but the article unsourced and I'm not sure it's appropriate to add this unsourced content to Royal College, Colombo which already contains vast chunks of unsourced content added over many years by an editor suffering from acute WP:SCHOOLCRUFT.--Obi2canibe (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: I have removed unsourced content, performed a copy edit and added new information supported by sources/references that directly address the inception and history of the society. I trust these improvements are sufficient to justify retaining the article as a standalone entry. Best regards. QEnigma (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The DFT and Sunday Times sources certainly provide significant coverage but I'm not sure there's enough content to justify a separate article. Obi2canibe (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't this be better as a disambiguation page? There are multiple different royal colleges and choirs. Like RMC London, [16], Regards. Govvy (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terp (music industry jargon)

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This article is just a definition, etymology, and usage examples of a jargon term; that's a dictionary entry. I don't see evidence that this article can be expanded significantly beyond a dictionary entry for this term. —Bkell (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Virtually devoid of content anyways. Could be mentioned at "dance" (essentially its definition) but I'm not sure a redirect is even worth it - that sort of disambiguation isn't likely to be searched for. 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The article "Terp (music industry jargon)" is verifiable, properly sourced, and documents a historical term used pervasively in the music and dance entertainment industry, especially in the mid-20th century.

I don't want to clutter this AfD discussion. But, here, I will step-out on a limb to show how prevalent the word ("terp" not "terpsichore") is, as a standard music industry term. Click on any of the below 277 issues of Billboard (from 1945–1949) where, in nearly every issue, the word "terp" is used – usually multiple times per issue. The term appeared consistently in Billboard's professional discourse — as a noun ("terp orchestra", "terp band"), verb ("to terp"), and adjective ("terp tempo").

Examples (short list):

"Good dancers can terp without music" — Billboard. Vol. 58, no. 37. September 14, 1946. p. 3
"Notch above terp trivia" — Billboard. Vol. 61, no. 50. December 10, 1949. p. 39
"Terp number" = dance arrangement
"Terp orchestra" = dance orchestra

This isn't WP:NOTDICT — the article includes etymology, historical usage, and is easily expandable with a section on "Usage in trade publications." Merging into "Dance" or "Terpsichore" would lose the specialized industrial context. This is not a general word — it's a trade term with decades of industry use.

Wikipedia should preserve — not erase — documented historical language used in cultural industries. – Eurodog (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before changing my stance, I'm still curious what direction you'd go in to expand it out of a basic dictionary entry. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook case of WP:NOTDICT. Eurodog said above:
This isn't WP:NOTDICT — the article includes etymology, historical usage, and is easily expandable with a section on "Usage in trade publications."
But yes, this is exactly what NOTDICT talks about. Articles should generally be about the concept represented by a word, not about the word itself, which clearly isn't the case here. Words have a pretty high bar for notability, and this isn't even close. Tracing usage like this without secondary coverage further violates WP:NOR. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I have removed a ridiculous list of 277 cite templates that are just 277 links to old Billboard magazine articles that use it from a 4 year span or so in the '40s. If you really want to look at it, you can view the old revision that has it here. It was 50k of wikitext that could have been summed up in like 2 sentences, making editing a major pain in the ass. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nicely written piece of original research. Not a single source goes beyond usage or dicdef, i.e., no refs with in-depth coverage. --Altenmann >talk 05:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, or smerge to Tap dance, or to All singing, all dancing. This is both original research and a double fork, which is quite the accomplishment. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sourcing context during relist

Thanks to User:Sandstein for relisting. I’m weighing in here to clarify sourcing and structural direction. I don't have a personal stake in whether Terp (music industry jargon) ultimately survives; I created it only because the term kept surfacing in secondary sources (pre- and post- World War II trade pubs like Billboard and Variety) while I was working on music- and dance-related pages. That said, I'd like to make several points that may warrant a short reprieve before outright deletion:

Trade-term, not casual slang – "Terp" (short for Terpsichorean) appears pervasively in the 1930s–1950s entertainment press — Variety, Billboard, etc.—as a professional noun ("terp band," "terp orchestra"), verb ("to terp"), adjective ("terp tempo") and even venue label ("terpery" for dance hall). In one 1946 Billboard issue, for example, it occurs on 33 pages. That niche but sustained industrial use is different from a one-off dictionary word.
Earliest located use (Jan 3 1933) – Variety 109 (4):68 carries an Abel Green by-line and describes a "feather dance [as] the ensemble terp highlight." January 1933 is also the month Abel Green succeeded Sime Silverman as editor.
Secondary coverage of the term's milieu – Green's New York Times obituary ("Abel Green, Editor of Variety ...", 11 May 1973, p. 42) explicitly discusses his habit of coining clipped jargon ("pix," "legit," etc.) and calls his staccato speech a "vocational disease." His 1951 book Show Biz: From Vaude to Video (Henry Holt) includes three glossary entries: "Terps—dancing," "Terpery—dance hall," "Terp team—ballroom dance team."
Potential to expand beyond WP:NOTDICT – With the above sources (and others, e.g., Peter Besas's Inside Variety, 1988) it is feasible to build sections on: (i) etymology and first print attestation; (ii) Variety's "slanguage" and Abel Green's role; (iii) documented usage in trade journalism; (iv) later decline. That makes the entry more encyclopaedic than purely definitional.
The article has been flagged as violating WP:NOTDICT – That's a fair concern—but "terp" isn't just a definition or glossary item. It has decades of contextually rich, professional use in major entertainment trade publications. With proper sourcing, the article could be structured less like a dictionary entry and more like an encyclopedic entry on a trade term (similar to truthiness or Macedonia (terminology)). If not, the material might be better folded into Variety's slanguage (Variety (magazine) § Culture), but the underlying sourcing shouldn't be discarded.
"Googability" ≠ notability – Much specialised jargon (scientific, legal, musical) is poorly indexed by modern search engines yet amply attested in print. Deletion purely on modern search visibility risks erasing verifiable trade vocabulary.
Finally, the term is cited in Rosemarie Ostler's Dewdroppers, Waldos, and Slackers: A Decade-by-Decade Guide to the Vanishing Vocabulary of the 20th Century (Oxford University Press, 2003), where it appears as part of America's fading slang. That alone doesn't establish notability — but it does show the term has received attention in a reliable linguistic source. Even if the article is eventually merged, Wikipedia is uniquely positioned to preserve such historically documented but culturally fading terms with appropriate attribution.

I'm happy to do the leg-work (adding inline citations, trimming anything unsourced, and ensuring compliance with WP:NOT and WP:OR). If the community still feels the material would live better elsewhere, merging into Variety (magazine) or an expanded Variety slanguage article would preserve the sourcing rather than discarding it. Since this AfD has now been re-listed, I'll use the time to begin improving the entry. If, after that effort, AfD-consensers nix terp fix — then (picture Abel Green in a bow-tie, with staccato accent): "terps get flivved ... pack bags for the silo circuit ... → one-nite stand for the terps ... no click, no boff, just a foldee → terp-team takes a bow, takes the hook, exits stage left, this rag drops the final olio ... curtains, cue the pratfall, scram – jive hits the shredder; this stub gets wickered!" — Eurodog (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not responding to everything here, but this doesn't even begin to address the concerns raised. "Trade-term, not casual slang". It doesn't matter a bit whether it's vulgar slang or industry jargon; the same conditions apply. "Earliest located use ..." Unless you found this information in a secondary source, it's OR. "Secondary coverage of the term's milieu". The first source (the Abel obit) doesn't even mention "terp". I don't have access to the second source, but if it really is just a glossary entry, then all that does is verify definition, again, dictionary material. "but "terp" isn't just a definition or glossary item. It has decades of contextually rich, professional use in major entertainment trade publications." No, "terp" is a word, and like many words, it was used, but that doesn't mean it qualifies for an article. "Even if the article is eventually merged, Wikipedia is uniquely positioned to preserve such historically documented but culturally fading terms with appropriate attribution." Again, NOTDICT. Maybe Wikiquote or Wikisource would be more appropriate sister projects for this stuff, but not here, and I don't know how many more ways there are to say this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the above comments carefully — especially the concerns raised about WP:NOTDICT and WP:OR. I'm still thinking through the best way to revise the article in light of those issues, and I may have come across some additional material that could help.

In the meantime, I'm going to edit the article to remove the "earliest known use" phrasing, as I can see how that might raise original research concerns.

If possible, I'd like to ask for a window — say 3 days — to see whether a more policy-compliant revision might be viable before the discussion closes. – Eurodog (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Eurodog, here's your extra time. But if no one agrees with the keep argument itself, more work won't get you far, unfortunately.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Here's a cool word and a bunch of period pieces that used it... That's what I get out of this article. I don't see any sourcing in Gsearch, Gnews or anywhere else... It does feel like an extended DICDEF Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a dictionary-type entry, and it doesn't make the case that the word itself is an encyclopedic subject per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: I recognize that this article may still be imperfect — but since the AfD was opened on June 5, it has been substantially reworked in good faith into something resembling an article, not a dictionary entry. The original version contained four citations; the current version contains 26 inline references drawn from trade journalism, slang dictionaries, entertainment glossaries, and lexicographic sources.

The term terp isn't part of today's vernacular, which may explain its limited presence in modern search results. But that's exactly why it's worth documenting: this was an industry-specific term with decades of recurring use in Billboard, Variety, and related trade contexts. The article now reflects this with sections on etymology, usage, documentation, and decline — offering cultural and historical framing, not just a definition.

Some editors have suggested redirection to Tap dance or All singing, all dancing, but those aren't appropriate targets. Terp refers more broadly to dancing as a cultural and professional category — not just tap — and certainly not to a phrase about musical extravagance. The term functioned as noun ("terp band"), verb ("to terp"), and adjective ("terp tempo") in mid-century entertainment publications and was codified in glossaries like Show Biz (1951) and The American Thesaurus of Slang (1953). That's more than casual slang — it's documented trade language.

We all can appreciate the concerns raised about WP:NOTDICT and sourcing. But this is no longer a one-paragraph stub. It's a cultural term with demonstrable historical usage in notable sources. I'm open to continued improvement or even thoughtful merging — but deleting it outright, in its present form, would risk applying content policy too narrowly, especially for historically grounded but culturally fading terminology. – Eurodog (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC) —Duplicate vote struck 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Eurodog, I am very impressed with the amount of work you have put into improving this article. This is now a structurally beautiful article and it is clear that a ton of effort was spent in researching this topic. So I truly regret to say I must agree with Metropolitan90 above that the article seems not to establish notability of the word terp by the policy described at WP:WORDISSUBJECT. You have found many, many sources that use the word terp, and you have found many dictionaries and glossaries that include it, but I don't see sources that discuss the importance of this word specifically, as a word. A key idea here is notability: has the word terp received significant coverage (coverage, not use) in reliable sources? Note that WP:WORDISSUBJECT specifically points out that inclusion in dictionaries and glossaries does not establish notability (every common English word is found in thousands of dictionaries, after all). If we subtract the cited sources that merely use the word, and also the citations to dictionaries and glossaries, what are we left with? Ostler's book seems to be the most promising source, as far as I can tell, but it just mentions terp once in a glossary and does not indicate that terp is more important or noteworthy than any of the hundreds of other terms mentioned in the book. This Wikipedia article is really a fascinating and thoroughly detailed investigation into the history of this word, but unfortunately in the end it seems to be just another word. I understand that it was used extensively in Variety and Billboard and elsewhere, but so were lots of other words, of course. All of the words I'm using here were used extensively in Variety and Billboard too. As interesting as this article is, Wikipedia is not in the business of writing detailed histories like this of every English word and jargon term. —Bkell (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the latest comments carefully — and I genuinely appreciate the thoughtfulness expressed by all of you, especially Bkell and Metropolitan90. I understand the concerns about WP:NOT, WP:DICT, and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. That said, I believe the article now meets the expectations of that guideline, based on three independent, reliable secondary sources that go beyond mere mention or dictionary listing:

Source	Nature of Coverage
American Speech (1937) by Tyson	Discusses "terp" as part of Variety's coded jargon that alienated outsiders.
H. L. Mencken’s The American Language, Supplement I (1945)	Analyzes "terp" as a coined Variety term, commenting on its slang role in theatrical journalism.
Bart (2006), Variety obituary for Abel Green	Identifies "terp" among the clipped slanguage pioneered by Green, as part of Variety's editorial identity.

Each of these sources offers discussion of the word "terp" in its cultural and linguistic context — they don't just define it. That places "terp" squarely within the policy's requirements for notability of a term as a subject. In any event, thanks to everyone for your close reading of the article and engagement in good faith. I'm happy to trim or revise further if anyone believes that would help. As it stands, though, I believe this is a notable and verifiable subject. — Eurodog (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: The observation that the article resembles a nice piece of original research isn't lost on me. I've worked to scrub that out. It's a hazard when one editor does most of the lifting. But in this case, it's also a challenge of the source landscape: "terp," "terper," "terp speed," "terp number," "terp team" — they didn't even bother saying (or rarely said) "dance." The term and its derivatives were so baked into the editorial language of trade circles that they rarely prompted the kind of analytic commentary we rely on for secondary sourcing. That kind of usage saturation leaves a long citation trail, but little meta-discussion. – Eurodog (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Tyson and Mencken both mention the word terp, but in both cases it's just one term among a large list of others (they're essentially brief glossaries). And I can't find terp in Bart at all. Certainly Variety's use of slanguage, as a whole, is notable; we mention it in Variety (magazine)#Culture, and maybe it should be expanded into its own article. But is the specific term terp alone notable? Why, out of the hundreds of jargon terms used by Variety (or coined by Green, or whatever), is terp uniquely noteworthy? —Bkell (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to @Bkell:: Thanks for the follow-up. Let me address your three examples directly.

Tyson (1937) – American Speech: p. 317 introduces Variety's "vocabulary all its own" and presents a table of terms that "may, perhaps, require some definition." "TERP | A dance or dance music" appears in that table (image linked). Tyson's point isn't merely to use the word in passing — it's to decode and explain it for a linguistic audience. That's secondary discussion.
Mencken (1945) – The American Language, Supplement I (p. 338): Mencken singles out clipped Variety coinages — "pix," "legit," "terp" — while analyzing their impact on Broadway and press argot. He calls them "the private Esperanto of Broadway." That's commentary on the word as a word.
Bart (2006) – Variety obituary of Abel Green (pp. 22–23): Bart reviews Green's house style and lists clipped forms that became editorial trademarks, including "terp." That's not a throwaway use — it's commentary on 'terp' as a linguistic artifact..

The upshot is that each of the three sources discusses "terp" in a meta-linguistic way, satisfying WP:WORDISSUBJECT's requirement for significant coverage.

Why "terp" and not other slanguage terms?

Because its frequency dwarfs most of the rest. In Variety and Billboard from the 1930s–60s, you'll find dozens of occurrences per issue — cumulatively, thousands — of "terp band," "terp tempo," "terp team," "terper," etc. A full survey would demonstrate this clearly — but it would be original research, so it's rightly left out of the article. I raise it here only to contextualize the term's prominence.

For reference, I did add to this discussion a collapsible table (June 7) with 277 linked Variety issues citing "terp" over just three years — to make this density of use transparent. That list was removed (June 8) by an editor in this discussion with the edit summary: why do we even need a giant list of usage? Fair question — but it reflects exactly why "terp" is notable: usage was so pervasive, editors in music trades barely wrote the word "dance." That saturation left a broad primary trail — but little secondary reflection. Ironically, lesser-used slanguage terms have received more commentary, simply because they were more obscure. "Terp" was as common as a definite article.

That's why documenting it now matters. Take this anecdote headline, from the Baltimore Sun (March 8, 2004): "Terps Dance Past Virginia" was removed from the article (June 15) as OR because today's readers may not know "terp" = "dance" (edit summary: Unless you have a source that makes this connection, you cannot know that the author intended this as a pun). This article helps close that gap. How would anyone know that the sports editor planted a double entendre, there (Terrapins nickname, "Terp" also means "dance," and, the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament is commonly called "the "Big Dance")? I would assert, "how could anyone NOT know?" — Eurodog (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up note — re: the Baltimore Sun headline. Who would feel the need to explain a witty double entendre in a sports headline? It's understood. That's the point. The term was once so familiar in the editorial bloodstream (and understood by some UM Basketball insiders) that it carried its punch without footnotes. That we now do have to explain it is exactly what makes it worth documenting. – Eurodog (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I still can't find terp in Bart. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. As far as I see, on pages 22–23 there is no mention of Abel Green at all, and no mention of terp. On pages xx–xxi (which show up as pages n23 and n24 in the Internet Archive URL, but those aren't the actual page numbers in the book), Bart talks about Green and his use of slanguage and his obituaries, so this looks like the section you're referring to, but I see no mention of terp there. Am I just missing it? Can you quote the appropriate sentence(s)? —Bkell (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is entirely valid to believe that terp has not been sufficiently well documented, and that it hasn't gotten the coverage or preservation it deserves, and that it was so common in its heyday that nobody bothered to write a thorough analysis of it, and that it deserves such an analysis now. But if all that is true, then you're performing original research. You are compiling an analysis of the word terp that nobody has done before. You've done great work with that, but Wikipedia isn't the place to publish that original research. —Bkell (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Response to @Bkell: — thanks for flagging the Bart citation. You're correct that Boffo! never mentions terp by name; my "p. 23" was a mis-key. I've updated the cite to pp. xvii–xxiii, where Bart profiles Abel Green and Variety's self-conscious "slanguage." Terp is one of many clipped insider terms that flourished in that lexical ecosystem, so Bart serves as secondary context for the milieu in which terp / terping / terper thrived.

On the OR point:

In-article scope: The article intentionally makes no statistical or breadth-of-usage claims. It sticks to who used the term, how, and where, citing primary period sources (e.g. Variety, Billboard, NYT) and the glossaries/dictionaries that discuss it.

AfD thread vs. article prose: My AfD comment about "thousands of hits" was an observation about why secondary analysis is thin—not an assertion inside the article. No uncited frequency language appears in the entry itself.

Editorial practice, not synthesis: Collecting verifiable examples, quoting them, and letting cited reference works supply the definitions is standard for historical-slang pages. If any sentence still seems to infer more than the sources warrant, let me know and I'll trim or re-source it.

Hope that clears up why the article isn't relying on unpublished analysis. Happy to tweak further if you spot specific over-reach. – Eurodog (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm truly sorry about this, but after this discussion I have to !vote Delete here. I don't think any sources have been identified that establish the notability of the term terp, by itself, to the standard given by WP:N and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Out of the three sources you gave above when I asked about notability (Tyson, Mencken, and Bart), Tyson and Mencken both mention terp only in lists with many other similar words (effectively brief glossaries), and Bart doesn't mention terp at all, so it cannot possibly establish notability for this term. These sources (and others) do establish the notability of Variety slanguage as a whole, and Tyson and Mencken explicitly include terp as part of that jargon, but the notability of Variety slanguage does not transfer to notability for each jargon term individually. This is true even if terp was among the most frequently used slanguage terms (a claim for which no source has been provided, and which analysis of the frequency of terp alone cannot establish without comparison to the frequency of other terms). We don't have articles for the terms boffo, nix, or veep, for example, and those are words I've actually heard of. Biopic is a redirect to Biographical film, but that article is about that topic, not the term (nothing in the article discusses the term biopic). Likewise for oater, hoofer, sitcom. The terp article is very well written and deeply researched, and I will be sad to see it go, but it is quite clear to me that isn't an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. Perhaps Wiktionary is a better place: Wiktionary cannot accept the deep analysis of this article, but it would likely benefit from some of the sources and usage examples you've identified. Alternatively, I'd encourage you to consider developing an article about Variety slanguage as a whole. I think you've found a good collection of sources that establish its notability, and such an article could go into detail about the history of slanguage, people like Abel Green, the ways in which slanguage established Variety's editorial identity and alienated outsiders, and so forth. The term terp could certainly make an appearance in that article. —Bkell (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkell: (resetting indentation) — Thanks for this thoughtful and collegial follow-up. No need at all to apologize. I've learned a lot from this discussion, and I truly appreciate the careful, good-faith engagement. We're all trying to uphold the same principles — and it's clear we're on the same team in wanting Wikipedia to, among other things, reflect well-sourced, notable content.

That said, I'd like to offer a clarification that may help bridge our views on original research (OR).

The article itself does not make any claims about the frequency or commonness of the term terp in show business. I've been very deliberate about that. Wherever possible, I've used direct quotations from reliable period sources (e.g., Billboard, Variety, The New York Times) and documented glossaries to illustrate usage. The article describes who used the term, how it was used, and where it appeared — not how often or how widely it was used. That omission was quite intentional, precisely to avoid unverifiable synthesis.

What I mentioned in the AfD discussion (not in the article) was the lack of in-depth secondary treatment as one reason why primary-source documentation was necessary. That was commentary on the state of the literature — not something imported into article prose. If anything, that argument supports notability, not original research.

I understand that compiling and contextualizing citations — especially for under-documented terms — can look like synthesis. But I'd argue that this kind of citation-driven editorial work is standard in articles about historical slang, jargon, and ephemera. In thinking this through, I took a close look at Hip (slang), which, in part, takes a similar documentary approach.

Of course, I'm always open to adjusting the article if there's a sentence that crosses the line into unsourced interpretation. But I hope this clarifies that I've tried to stay on the cautious side — tracing verifiable use and glossed meaning, without asserting frequency or cultural dominance.

Again, thanks — sincerely — for taking the time to read and respond in detail. – Eurodog (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings: I wanted to provide a brief update on recent edits to the article. I've added a new subsection on "terp tempo," based on analysis by a credible music writer who cites examples from Billboard and Variety. Until the article's fate is decided, I will continue seeking reputable secondary sources to enhance the content and address concerns raised here. I also plan to visit the NYPL for the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center in search of other work written on the topic. – Eurodog (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FyaVerse

Music Proposed deletions

Grosvenor Light Opera Company (via WP:PROD on 22 March 2025)
Zoo (Norwegian band) (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2025)
Funk automotivo (via WP:PROD on 10 May 2025)