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The result was Keep Nomination withdrawn. Rodhullandemu 18:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honorific titles in popular music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

POV beyond belief. What is this "Quick facts:" thing? Honorifics are by definition non-neutral. What about honorifics that have been debated or applied to different people. This is trivia. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Irrespective of the article's merits, starting a new AFD discussion only 9 days after the last one closed seems a bit pointless. Article has been actively edited since decision to keep last time - why not give it time to settle down before reopening the deletion discussion? Having said that, I'm not really convinced that bringing all this information together is worthwhile as it seems more appropriate to mention these honorifics in the individual artists' articles.--Michig (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Michig is 100% right on the haste with which this second AfD has been proposed. Just because the "in construction" template was taken down doesn't mean a new AfD should be filed immediately. A lot of good faith work has been done. Let's respect that and give it time. It does no harm, for now. Giving it six months to get into shape before nominating it again seems a decent interval to me. David in DC (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A pointless nomination by Tenacious D after the first debate was closed not to long ago. The article has had a good faith effort by so many to maintain itself everyday. THERE IS NO POV ON THE PAGE, everything is SOURCED AND REFERERENCED and if the alleged "point of view" is the basis for the nomination, THEN THAT IS A SERIOUS lack of putting an investigation into the references and sources that are clearly there and redirect to what any sentence is talking about. It's a pointless agrument

that tried and failed. That POV/Trivia stuff just never holds in the Court of Wikipedia lol its not true. Its still new but looks good. If theres any problem its probably small and can be fixed but nominating it deletion is ridiclous Kelvin Martinez (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well sourced and of interest to many people, and does no harm to anyone. I have a feeling that the problem is that the article is a bit "low brow" for some people's taste.Steve Dufour (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Given the extent of effort and energy put into this by the contributor(s), the most favorable outcome would be for the article to remain and for those interested to request involvement of a few more experienced WP editors. The content reflects a lot of effort, but it could be improved a little for style and Encyclopedic tone.

Also, I would strongly encourage those who have not yet done so to review:

• Sobriquet article in main;
• Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron;

On balance, it is better to keep than delete if there is evidence of significant good-faith effort to both improve content and the value of contributions in general, which seems to be the case here. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article isn't bad at all, although the writing could use a little toning down in places and the "Quick Facts" sections may be superfluous. The nom is on a deletion rampage through the music articles, and most of the nom's complaints are really off-base on this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my "deletion rampage" has anything to do with anything. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears a reasonable article, and certainly useful. I wish someone could think of a more obvious title. DGG (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I mentioned in the previous AfD, the subject of the article is actually not addressed at all. This article is merely a list of musicians who have been given a title at one point or another. There's no information about "honorific titles in popular music" at all. There's little to no citations for titles applied to the artists themselves. There's not prood that "honorific titles in popular music" is a notable topic in of itself. All there is a constantly-expanding series of statistics that belong in the individual artist pages. Additionally, these facts are being used to validate the supposed "honorific status", which is original research. I ask that those who have voted "Keep" take a closer look at this article, because under close scrutiny it falls apart. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have just flagged the article for rescue as I believe it needs the considered opinion of non-involved editors/administrators. As I have mentioned before, even though the subject matter is of no interest to me whatsoever, I consider the article to have been created in good faith and it evidently concerns notable subjects - trivial, popular or non-highbrow - but notable none the less. The fact that so much time has gone into making it well-referenced and as wikified as possible - as opposed to so much energy wasted in trying to pick it to pieces and nominating it for deletion justifies it being given a fair "hearing". Have copyed & pasted this from the article talk page. --Technopat (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt the article was created in good faith, but it's assembling facts in a very unencyclopedic manner. All those "quick facts" have to go for one, because they have no bearing on the topic and belong in the individual artists' articles, where those facts would be in the proper encyclopedic context. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I voted "weak keep" in the previous AfD which just closed, but the article has improved since then. Perhaps, to acknowledge WesleyDodds' points, a slight name change is in order. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - AND I WAS THE PERSON WHO NOMINATED IT THE FIRST TIME - I'm sorry, even though I absolutely think this article is pointless, a consensus was reached to keep the article less than two weeks ago. More time should have passed before a second nomination to give the editor more time to improve it (if actually possible). — Realist² (Speak) 19:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was no consensus reached in the last AfD. No consensus does not equal consensus of keep. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 21:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As per Wikipedia:Deletion process: No consensus - default to keep --Technopat (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For the points raised by Technopat and Realist. There is plenty of room for improvement, but nominating this article after it cleared AfD so recently is in extremely poor taste. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it didn't clear AfD; there was simply no consensus. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an interesting, well-referenced article on a narrowly defined topic of interest to our readers. As Wesley notes, the article's title is misleading as it is not devoted to analysis of the use of honorifics in pop, the focus should be shifted away from "list of highly successful genre artists and why they are so great" to the titles themselves, and I'd prefer to see the "quick facts" done away with, but these are surmountable WP:PROBLEMS that do not bear any relevance to the potential of the article. Skomorokh 00:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it is notable. Perhaps it may just need cleanup and/or wikification.Kitty53 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - Per overwhelming consensus. I would like to see how this article turns out, and perhaps I was a bit to speedy in renominating this. I don't appreciate Wasted Time R's comments in describing my AfD efforts as a rampage. Have a go at the nomination, not the nominator. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, during certain stretches you've been putting music articles up for AfD so rapidly that I don't think you're fully studying the article, the article's subject, what its potential is for being a decent article, what the article history is, etc. This is an example where I don't think you did due diligence. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is withdrawn, would an admin please close? Thanks. Best, David in DC (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.