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. This was a long debate and took me some time to parse it all. Based on the content of the arguements here, I find that the preponderance of the "Delete" concerns can be dealt with by methods other than deletion, such as proper sourcing and trimming of the list, or possibly renaming the article. Since deletion is not a cleanup method, and there are also a number of valid, policy-based keep reasons as well, I am closing this as a consensus keep.Jayron32 18:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of honorific titles in popular music[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of honorific titles in popular music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is in fact the fourth nomination for this page. The first was closed as no consensus, on the grounds that "it has been argued that the information here is sourced." The second was closed as keep, largely because the nomination (which was made 9 days after the first one) was withdrawn. The third nomination, in October 2008, was speedy kept, again on the grounds that the article is sourced. It has become painfully clear, however, that this article can never be a properly sourced, neutral article. The article's talk page shows multiple examples of poor sourcing and references being used to support "titles" that clearly do not do so. To take just one peformer, among other things Michael Jackson was listed as the "Biggest Pop Star of the '80s," the "God of Music," and the "God of Pop," on the basis of a blog entry beginning "Michael Jackson was unquestionably the biggest pop star of the '80s"; a remark by Wyclef Jean that Jackson was "his music god"; and the title of an article reading "How Michael Jackson became a Pop God," respectively. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that these are not actually "honorific titles," but rather nicknames; that the lead sets out criteria for inclusion which are routinely ignored by editors with an axe to grind; and that factual accuracy is an ongoing problem for the article. Ultimately, this type of information (for example, that Elvis was known as The King, and that Michael Jackson was known as the King of Pop) might belong in the articles of the various subjects, but this list is an unredeemable mess of POV and factual inaccuracy that requires far too much interpretation on the part of Wikipedia editors as to what constitutes being "widely known" by a particular title or nickname. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If by "very well sourced" you mean "has lots of sources, most of which are highly questionable, then yes. Sorry, but there has to be a better reason than "it's got a lot of sources," which was the justification for keeping previously. This list has extreme problems. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we disregard this delete by --79.112.50.60 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC) due to the fact that its possible Wp:Socks —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITalkTheTruth (talk • contribs) [reply]
I see no reason to consider 79.112.50.60 a sock puppet, unless you can identify some other participant in this discussion for whom they appear to be an alternate identity. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It matters a great deal. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fansite, blog, or random collection of facts, and it's supposed to be academic and accurate. An honorific title is a title bestowed upon individuals or organizations as an award in recognition of their merits, such as Knight, Patriarch of Venice, or Hero of the Russian Federation. An honorific is a title like Doctor, Mrs or Officer. A nickname is usually the familiar, diminutive, or truncated form of a proper name, like Bobby, or a descriptive name, like Sparky (for an electrician) or Bones (for a surgeon). As I stated in my original post, a list of this sort requires far too much interpretation on the part of editors as to what constitutes "being widely known as." Here's another randmonly chosen example: Ciara, "Princess of Crunk"? According to this list, yes. The source? A magazine article titled "Ciara, Princess of Crunk" that makes no other mention of this alleged "honorific title." Exploding Boy (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article not refer to that person with that title? Is that inaccurate? Gimmetrow 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only in the article title, something this entry has in common with several others. In other words, a catchy article title is being used to support the claim that a given performer is widely known by a given nickname, but the source doesn't make that claim at all. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article, as constructed, includes verifiable phrases; it doesn't actually assert any specific title is "widely known", only that it was used in a reliable source. That removes the key part of your argument above. What's left - a complaint about "nickname" vs. "honorific"? That could, if people wanted, be addressed by renaming the article something like royal nicknames in popular music. Gimmetrow 00:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of making either a list called "list of honorific titles in popular music" or "royal nicknames in popular music"? Separated from the context of articles themselves, the list of titles/nicknames is a huge mass of trivia. I know that if this were a category it would get deleted pretty quickly as a trivial grouping. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Our criteria for notability require more than a single, offhand mention in a single source. At minimum, the phrase would need to be used and be mentioned as significant in the article, and even then I can't see how this list is even slightly encyclopedic. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our WP:Notability criteria apply to topics, and not to every individual fact in an article or list. We don't require two citations for every sentence in an article, for instance. However, if you wanted to argue for requiring 2+ citations for each entry, that could be discussed. Gimmetrow 07:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to both the above comments, the references are one of the problems; it's tempting to take a long list of references as proof that an article is "well referenced" and that the information is accurate and being used accurately in the article. This article has been kept twice before on the basis of being "well referenced," apparently because commenters haven't actually been doing the work of carefully checking each reference against the claims being made in the article. Deleting sourced content is required when the content is using the sources in novel ways, and it's been demonstrated that this is precisely what is going on here. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will rephrase my statement. Every item on that list is not poorly sourced nor is every item sourced using original research. I don't see an article having some poorly sourced content as justification to delete some well sourced content. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Remove the poorly sourced/original research, keep the content that is directly supported with a reliable source, and improve sourcing where it can be done. --kelapstick (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that all those who are voting to keep this article will be following through by ensuring that all its problems are solved... Exploding Boy (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the reasons were well explained above. As for "notable" and "encyclopedic," I disagree. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment Combing through the cites, I see a lot of sources referenced where writers use the term "pop princess" or similiar. This is a common music journalist convention; it's not a proper title, instead it's a fancy way of saying "female pop singer". These people have to make their articles interesting to read, after all. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on renaming proposal. Renaming would get around one of the major problems (the unsupported idea that these are honorific titles), but I can see two major problems that arise. First, the article might get even larger as that would imply that every jazz and rap singer (to give just two examples) could be in the list (e.g. Shawn Carter = Jazzy = JayZ = Jiggy). The second is whether such a list would be any closer to reaching WP:N, particularly "Significant coverage: ... that sources address the subject directly in detail", in short we might be trading one non-notable article that encourages endless pointless listing for a slightly more logical one that does the same. Personally I am only in favour of list articles where the list in some way pulls together relevant knowledge that could not be done in any other way and I am not sure that such an article would do that. If those problems can be surmounted it might be possible to build some kind of consensus around the proposal.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely see your point, and even as I wrote my comment above, I noticed that the underlying notability issue remains unaddressed. I see just the one reference that addresses the notion of nicknames in music as a broad topic; substantiation for individual entries' nicknames verifies the nickname, but doesn't convey notability to the overall topic as a whole. But, I figured the single reference in the lead was the only one that edges toward "titles", and am assuming there are other third-party sources out there that address musicians' nicknames as a whole. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if that guess is wrong; as someone not particularly engaged (i.e. not even a consumer of) music press, I didn't feel comfortable asserting the overall absence of such notability-establishing material; happy to leave that to those who better know the field. --EEMIV (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not voting since AFD is not a vote. I'm expressing an opinion that this should be kept, and also expressing an opinion that this has been discussed enough.--Michig (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has survived 3 previous AFDs on more or less similar grounds: "well, it's got a lot of sources"; "it's been through an AFD before"; "it really does have a lot of sources and has been through an AFD before..." We need to be looking at the deltion proposal (or, if you prefer, the article) on its own merits. It's been a suitable length of time since the last discussion, and the major, unsolvable problems remain. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the article and the arguments in favour of deletion. Please just accept that my opinion differs from your own and move on.--Michig (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion, but it's very much a criterion for AFD deletion. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this article has already been kept a few times, it should be speedily kept as "keep trying until its deleted" nom. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That an article has survived previous deletion discussions does not mean it is not a candidate for deletion. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renominations are generally unproductive and unhelpful, especially a fourth go around. So, instead of an article, we would have four deletion discussions? How does that contribute to the cataloging of human knowledge and benefit our readership rather than having an article that at least some segment of our community's finds relevant? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are they? On what basis do you draw that conclusion? If you'd bothered to read the original rationale for deletion I posted, you would have learned that the first AFD was closed as no consensus, on the grounds that "it has been argued that the information here is sourced," something clearly problematic given the subsequent AFDs and the article's current state, and just not a very good reason for determining consensus or whether or not an article should be deleted. The second was closed as keep, largely because the nomination (which was made 9 days after the first one) was withdrawn. The third nomination, several months later, was speedy kept, again on the grounds that the article has sources. We don't keep articles solely because they have many sources, and we certainly don't keep them because "some segment of our community finds them relevant." This is supposed to be a scholarly work, and encyclopedia. We can have more articles than a paper encyclopedia, and longer ones, but there's no expectation that we should include every topic; that's why we have criteria for inclusion. This list fails on several grounds, it's a mess of POV and selective use of dubious sources (even ones that might otherwise be considered reliable), nobody can even agree on the basic criteria for inclusion on the list itself, and we have significant disagreement over whether the list title is accurate or applicable. This is a wide-open invitation for original research or novel synthesis, there is no possibility of finding a standard or threshold for inclusion, and there's zero evidence that there is even such a concept in the real world or in scholarly literature. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THe items on this list are sourced by sources that exist in the real world. No one is presenting a real reason to delete here, to improve, to revise, certainly, but it meets our basic criteria for inclusion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "honorific title" in that source refers to the Chinese phrase "big sister." Linguistically that is an honorific, since it's used when addressing young women to whom the speaker is unrelated. It's an entirely different concept, and the author is not making the case that this is an example of an "honorific title in pop music." Exploding Boy (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletions are made for "articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources ..."(at WP:DEL). I think that covers what is being argued here for those who believe it should be deleted.--Sabrebd (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, most of the items on the list are covered in reliable sources, hence the arguments to keep. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely the problem: people are just looking at the list of references, without actually bothering to read the sources and determine whether they actually support what they're being used to support, and in many cases they don't. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone. Reading through the list and references just inspired me to go ahead and make a red link blue with Mao Amin, arguably China's biggest pop star of the 1980s, who is directly discussed in published books even English-language ones, which I focused on for the sake of our article as its the English Wikipedia (you can find much more in Chinese of course). If anything, I wish more participants would move beyond the discussions to article improvement. Imagine what we might get done! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't actually addressed anything I said. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing substantive in the way of a reason to redlink that needs addressing. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "redlink" in the above post, but there are multiple issues identified in my post above, all of which support deletion, and none of which you have addressed. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redlinked article (crazy cockatiel man) is one that does not exist versus a blue link (Napoleon). Any so-called issues are either inaccurate or fixable whether by renaming or additional referencing, which support keeping and improving or revising, but no reason has been presented that there is some desperate urgent need to prevent any further efforts to improve the content further or merge it in the extreme worst case scenario. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just never heard "to redlink" used as a synonym for "delete" before. In any case, it's clear you're choosing to ignore the substantial problems, even in the face of careful and repeated explanation, so I see little point in continuing this exchange. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am just not humoring perceived problems that do not really exist (someone could shout the fire ants are taking over all they want, but if they really are not then we cannot reasonably be expected to take measures to defeat them); sure the article is not perfect, but there is no dire need to halt production altogether. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you (or anyone else) have any suggestions on how to deal with the issues raised under the original retitle suggestion?--Sabrebd (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that "list of nicknames in pop music" wouldn't be any more encyclopedic than the existing title. Bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a scholarly work, I'd like to seem some convincing argument that such a list would be. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the relisting admin: I see that the debate is still pretty lively so it may be the best to leave it open for a while. My opinion is that this article indeed has a problem with the indiscriminate case, since there is no real definition of honorific titles in popular music. However, if a source was found describing those, most of the article would become useful. --Tone 15:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems we have two issues here, both of which are problematical, but neither incapable of resolution. The first is notability of the topic itself. When, about 70 years ago, some music journalist dubbed Benny Goodman "The King of Swing", nobody thought to say "there's no such thing". OK, it's arguably a bit of hype, but that's nothing new in the the music industry. I'll remind you that Johann Strauss is adequately sourced as "The Waltz King" as is John Philip Sousa as "The March King"; both of these forms of music qualify as "popular" in its senses of "not classical" and "enjoyed by the masses". Popular music has been around as long as has music itself, and so have journalistic descriptions of it- which is perhaps the problem, and leads me to the second issue, that of reliable sourcing. I think we should leave record company hype out of it, as should we eschew self-published claims, and those of minor sources whose authority on these topics is debatable. If you look at List of events named massacres, the criteria for inclusion are set out quite clearly as to avoid dispute. In the current case, we cannot always rely on inexperienced editors to understand notability or verifiability, and that has been a major problem with this article - editors adding or removing content according to personal preferences. The solution to both issues is to insist on reliable sources- but some genres of music have their specialist publications which are regarded as reliable in their own scope, but not otherwise. A cull of poorly-sourced entries would be a good start, but it seems plain that this list is as valid as many others; resistance to fancruft would be appreciated, but I don't see any of those supporting deletion having actually weighed in to maintain what is obviously a difficult article. Perhaps, we should delete Barack Obama on the basis that it's "too difficult to maintain". As for Sabrebd's above comments, some "list" articles arise from commonality that is not necessarily spelt out in one source, and it is not original research to create such articles, when the title sets out what the list comprises. After that, it's an issue of inclusion/non-inclusion, and that depends on tight specification of the inclusion criteria. Rodhullandemu 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"When, about 70 years ago, some music journalist dubbed Benny Goodman "The King of Swing", nobody thought to say "there's no such thing". OK, it's arguably a bit of hype, but that's nothing new in the the music industry."
Yes, but the music journalist of 70 years ago wasn't writing an encyclopedia entry at the time. Many of the editors of the article at issue appear to be.
""I'll remind you that Johann Strauss is adequately sourced as "The Waltz King" as is John Philip Sousa as "The March King"; both of these forms of music qualify as "popular" in its senses of "not classical" and "enjoyed by the masses"."
Adequate sourcing is a great boon to the verisimilitude of the appellations bestowed on both artists. Many of the artists on the list lack precisely this adequate sourcing. I would argue that most of them do, but we are free to disagree on that point, if either of us, or any among us, desire to. In either case, a list whose entries are justified by a single, misused source is not useful.
"Popular music has been around as long as has music itself, and so have journalistic descriptions of it- which is perhaps the problem, and leads me to the second issue, that of reliable sourcing. I think we should leave record company hype out of it, as should we eschew self-published claims, and those of minor sources whose authority on these topics is debatable."
You and I are in agreement here, though the question of what construes a minor source is an issue, especially, it seems to me, when it comes to music.
"....In the current case, we cannot always rely on inexperienced editors to understand notability or verifiability, and that has been a major problem with this article - editors adding or removing content according to personal preferences."
I can't speak to innocence vs. experience, but yes, eagerness to add to the list has led editors to add artists based on very thin source material, and to justify it using the same. The Mirror stating that Freddie Mercury was voted by fans to be their favorite "rock god" translating to Freddie Mercury appearing on the list as "The God of Rock" as an appellation may or may not have anything to do with editors' feelings about Freddie Mercury, but it is inaccurate, and only one of many examples within this article of original research leading to misinformation.
"...insist on reliable sources- but some genres of music have their specialist publications which are regarded as reliable in their own scope, but not otherwise."
I agree with you 100%. The Wall Street Journal is not where I go to learn about my favorite, heavy metal, twee, or electronica group. Other sources specialize in that sort of thing, and I would go to them as a source of information. Underground music especially gets, by its very nature, coverage only in underground press. This does not forgive digging through said press on a particular artist for ties of "queen" and "bebop," and claiming that it is therefore a moniker for said artist.
"A cull of poorly-sourced entries would be a good start, but it seems plain that this list is as valid as many others; resistance to fancruft would be appreciated, but I don't see any of those supporting deletion having actually weighed in to maintain what is obviously a difficult article."
I tried starting an edit containing only entries whose sources, and interpretations of same, were valid, and before I'd gotten to Rick Davies, I'd deleted everything except Little Richard. None, in my opinion, of the sources up to that point confirmed the moniker listed in an authoritative way. I also question what purpose the list would serve once it was completed, assuming it ever was.
"Perhaps, we should delete Barack Obama on the basis that it's "too difficult to maintain"."
Barack Obama does indeed make for a difficult article, but he is also a recognized historical figure, with thousands of media sources about him. That Kira (a made up name) was called by one newspaper "a winsome princess of psychedelia" (also made up) is also worth listing as "The Princess of Psychedelia," based on the in interpretation of an editor who meant well, but was eager to get something in (or for whatever reason the edit was made), is an entirely different thing. This particular article does not, in my opinion, achieve this goal.

When, about 70 years ago, some music journalist dubbed Benny Goodman "The King of Swing", nobody thought to say "there's no such thing". OK, it's arguably a bit of hype, but that's nothing new in the the music industry.

Yes, but the music journalist of 70 years ago wasn't writing an encyclopedia entry at the time. Many of the editors of the article at issue appear to be.

I'll remind you that Johann Strauss is adequately sourced as "The Waltz King" as is John Philip Sousa as "The March King"; both of these forms of music qualify as "popular" in its senses of "not classical" and "enjoyed by the masses".

Adequate sourcing is a great boon to the verisimilitude of the appellations bestowed on both artists. Many of the artists on the list lack precisely this adequate sourcing. I would argue that most of them do, but we are free to disagree on that point, if either of us, or any among us, desire to. In either case, a list whose entries are justified by a single, misused source is not useful.

Popular music has been around as long as has music itself, and so have journalistic descriptions of it- which is perhaps the problem, and leads me to the second issue, that of reliable sourcing. I think we should leave record company hype out of it, as should we eschew self-published claims, and those of minor sources whose authority on these topics is debatable.

You and I are in agreement here, though the question of what construes a minor source is an issue, especially, it seems to me, when it comes to music.

"....In the current case, we cannot always rely on inexperienced editors to understand notability or verifiability, and that has been a major problem with this article - editors adding or removing content according to personal preferences."

I can't speak to innocence vs. experience, but yes, eagerness to add to the list has led editors to add artists based on very thin source material, and to justify it using the same. The Mirror stating that Freddie Mercury was voted by fans to be their favorite "rock god" translating to Freddie Mercury appearing on the list as "The God of Rock" as an appellation may or may not have anything to do with editors' feelings about Freddie Mercury, but it is inaccurate, and only one of many examples within this article of original research leading to misinformation.

...insist on reliable sources- but some genres of music have their specialist publications which are regarded as reliable in their own scope, but not otherwise.

I agree with you 100%. The Wall Street Journal is not where I go to learn about my favorite, heavy metal, twee, or electronica group. Other sources specialize in that sort of thing, and I would go to them as a source of information. Underground music especially gets, by its very nature, coverage only in underground press. This does not forgive digging through said press on a particular artist for ties of "queen" and "bebop," and claiming that it is therefore a moniker for said artist.

A cull of poorly-sourced entries would be a good start, but it seems plain that this list is as valid as many others; resistance to fancruft would be appreciated, but I don't see any of those supporting deletion having actually weighed in to maintain what is obviously a difficult article.

I tried starting an edit containing only entries whose sources, and interpretations of same, were valid, and before I'd gotten to Rick Davies, I'd deleted everything except Little Richard. None, in my opinion, of the sources up to that point confirmed the moniker listed in an authoritative way. I also question what purpose the list would serve once it was completed, assuming it ever was.


"Perhaps, we should delete Barack Obama on the basis that it's "too difficult to maintain".

Barack Obama does indeed make for a difficult article, but he is also a recognized historical figure, with thousands of media sources about him. That Kira (a made up name) was called by one newspaper "a winsome princess of psychedelia" (also made up) is also worth listing as "The Princess of Psychedelia," based on the in interpretation of an editor who meant well, but was eager to get something in (or for whatever reason the edit was made), is an entirely different thing.
As for Sabrebd's above comments, some "list" articles arise from commonality that is not necessarily spelt out in one source, and it is not original research to create such articles, when the title sets out what the list comprises. After that, it's an issue of inclusion/non-inclusion, and that depends on tight specification of the inclusion criteria.
This particular article does not, in my opinion, achieve this goal. It has been argued above that the inclusion criteria are not tightly specified, and that even where they are laid out, they are not met within the specifications of the article as it exists. It is also my opinion that, when all entries that do meet the notability, reliability of source, and avoidance of original research guidelines are deleted, a very short list will be left, and it would more worthwhile to incorporate the "honorific titles" into the articles to which they pertain, if the information does not already exist there. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)talk) 00:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rodhullandmeu is right that no one thought "there is no such thing!" when the "King of Swing" was coined. However, neither did anyone say "gee I wonder what other royal-sounding nicknames have been applied to other musicians?" and then proceeded to poke through the library gathering twigs and berries until she had enough for a pamphlet on the subject. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's an inescapable consequence of having such an article as this, and it's easy to Google "King/Queen of X" for your favourite artist; but the acid test is whether you can turn up reliable sources. The Talk page archives show numerous proposals which have been rejected for lack of such sources. However, that doesn't mean that research should not occur. "Queen of Folk Music" is a case in point- while researching this for Sandy Denny, I came across Vinjamuri Anasuya Devi, then a redlink but who now has an article- not a great article, but adequate. Is that enough "twigs and berries" for you? Rodhullandemu 00:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't see any of those supporting deletion having actually weighed in to maintain what is obviously a difficult article." -- I have, both in direct edits and on the talk page; it rapidly became obvious there was no saving it. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To you, perhaps. However, I see no benefit in discussing with an editor who feels it necessary to comment to every other editor opposed to the nomination; that strikes me as "not waving, but drowning", and a little desperate. I'm happy to abide by the decision of the closing admin (poor guy!), but my feeling as an admin myself is that no outcome is going to be acceptable. Meanwhile, I've set out my stall, and you may take it or leave it. Rodhullandemu 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find that comment a little rude, and fail to see how participating in a deletion discussion or supporting the deletion of an article on clearly laid out grounds constitutes "NPOV." Exploding Boy (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I can't expect every nominator of an article to predict counter-arguments in advance, although given the previous history of this article, that might have been expected. Forgive me if I appear to accuse you of badgering those who disagree with you. Rodhullandemu 00:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should disclose that I closed a previous AfD myself as "speedy keep" because (i) the article was relatively new, and sourced, (ii) the nomination followed hard on the heels of a previous Afd which had also been closed as "keep", and (iii) that nomination introduced nothing new to the debate; in short, it was premature and poorly-argued. Rodhullandemu 23:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Neither did many topics in their origin, such as the theory of evolution or penicillin, until someone decided to put his/her observations down on paper and develop 'em from there."—So you're suggesting that we develop the study of "honorific titles in pop music" right here on Wikipedia? indopug (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not interpret my words - I suggested nothing of the sort. If you had asked me: "Do you suggest...", the answer would obviously be "no". But a mere list, suitably sourced, has its use. Wikipedia has several advantages over traditional reference works, one of which is the wide-ranging number of topics, articles and lists to be found here. As such, it is the first choice for sourcing contemporary topics that are unlikely to be found elsewhere. If I need to look something up on the Byzantine empire at the end of the 5th century, I'd go to my Britannica (and then probably come to Wikipedia to see if there were any more-up-to-date sources listed as references.) If I want to know where/when/why the honorific title "The King of Pop" came about, Wikipedia is the place. And before you interpret my words, that has nothing to do with trivia. It's called "curiosity" - one of our greatest attributes as humans... and the driver of knowledge. Wikipedia rules!--Technopat (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except the list doesn't say why they're called king or queen, and neither do the sources. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:I just don't like it - "Human knowledge is what Wikipedia covers, and its extent is determined by the world at large, as documented and recorded in reliable sources, not by us as editors choosing what we personally consider to be popular. Again, we base our arguments upon what sources say, not upon our personal likes and dislikes." (My bold). --Technopat (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of the past nominations can be considered disruptive nominationsl they were speedy kept because a new AFD was posted quickly after the last one closed. In the case of this AFD, a lot of time has passed. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this nomination clearly does not meet the criteria for WP:SK. There is no edit war in the article and given the issues raised on the talk page and here, it clearly is not vandalism. The discussion has been actively going for ten days and has been relisted, and now you call for speedy keep? I see little point in simply restating the same arguments, which have been reasonably (even if you do not agree with them) refuted by a number of editors, indicating a valid debate. You now point to the possibility of renaming, which has been raised before, but largely ignored in these discussions. I believe this is the most likely possibility of gaining some kind of consensus (in fact it is the only one raised here so far), but it is necessary to take on board the issues I pointed to when this was first raised by EEIMV, if you want to convince many of those arguing for deletion to adopt this solution. To save time I will repeat them:

Since this offers the possibility of consensus it would be helpful to address these issues directly so that we can all try to take the debate forward.--Sabrebd (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I object to the characterization of this as a "disruptive nomination," and I take it as an inappropriate comment. The rationale for this fourth nomination has been thoroughly discussed, including in the nomination itself. Second, A. Nobody has thus far declined to respond to a request for explanation with regard to this addition of a template to the article talk page claiming that the list "now serves to provide attribution for content in Mao Amin and must not be deleted so long as Mao Amin exists," a transparent attempt to prevent deletion which in fact provides no attribution at all. I would still like to see an explanation of that, as I've never seen this template before and Wikipedia articles (much less lists) cannot be used as sources for other articles anyway. I appreciate that A. Nobody feels as strongly that this list should be kept as I feel it should be deleted, but this latest post still does not address all the rationales for deletion or even the rebuttals to his six numbered points, given further above. Additionally, it's clear that there is nowhere near unanimous consensus to keep. A quick count shows that out of 33 who chose to put either "keep" or "delete" in their comments, only 3 more users support keeping than support deletion. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have commented on that talk page and while this is not a vote, the majority for keeping if anything reflects a lack of consensus to delete and even some of those saying to delete do not seem that closed-minded to some kind of improvements/rethinking that would address their concerns. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I posted my comment above, yes you have, and thanks for that. However, Mao Amin is a stand-alone article with external sources. Nothing was "transported" from List of honorific titles in popular music to the Mao article, and while there are mutual links (to Mao Amin from the List of honorific titles in popular music article and to List of honorific titles in popular music from the Mao Amin article), the mere fact that articles link to one another does not prevent them from being deleted. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
from this article, I used "Dajieda ("Big Sister") Mao Amin China [145]" which went to the other article when first started (see and compare [1]), i.e. when I started that article, I first use the information from this list as it seemed strange that she would be redlinked, which got me interested in the subject and later resulted in the expansion of her article. Thus, this article cannot be deleted. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure your views on how Wikipedia should follow the tenants of late eighteenth-century positivism would be fascinating, but this is really not the place for such a discussion, we should probably deal with the guidelines as they stand at the moment. The link you supply for the source unfortunately just links to the Google book overview page, so it is difficult to see exactly what it says at the moment. However, I do not think that many people who feel that the article as it stands should be deleted will feel it could be supported by a book published before modern popular music came into being. I think we are looking for some kind of current or continuous discussion with direct relevance. There is no great hurry over this, I am sure if success looks likely the debate could be prolonged again.
I am really not sure about your point over nicknames dictionaries. Most of the ones you give a Google search for are not available for access, but I have a few here and they all deal with the sort of nicknames that are shortenings of forenames or relate to physical attributes, I do not see anything on giving names to famous people or musicians. The problem will not be proving that nicknames exist, but that there are accessible and verifiable sources dealing with how they are given to musicians.
The issue over avoiding whole series of multiple names does not seem to be addressed in your answer, unless that is your point over the new proposal for several articles. I suspect that replacing one proliferating article with several will not seem like a great solution to those arguing for deletion, but lets put it on the table and see what editors think. Personally I think we are more likely to find sources dealing with the kind of topics you suggest than honorific titles or nicknames in popular music in general.
We have already discussed the issue of how sources are to be used in the article, and even if there is not a clear consensus over keep/delete, I think we may well gain a consensus for a more rigorous use of sources, but lets just put that aside as it is irrelevant until we know what we are doing.

So in summary we have the following proposals (that do not involve simply delete or keep - on which, obviously, editors can still give their opinions):

To state the obvious, this is not a 2 or 3 way debate and it would be helpful if other editors on both sides were to join in.--Sabrebd (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well pointed out. This is becoming more contentious than strictly necessary, perhaps because of some polarisation of views, as there seems to be little middle ground. However, I would like to address that. It is beyond doubt that some reigning European monarchs were in their time given epithets such as e.g. Charles the Fat, Charles the Bald and Ivan the Terrible, but I wouldn't describe these as "honorifics"; yet if there were a list of these nicknames here, I doubt there would be much resistance to that, since the alternative would be disambiguation pages which would not give an overview- however, such a list, separated from the redirects, would not be indiscriminate, since it would be tightly-specified, as I pointed out earlier, and give a reader something that a redirect or individual article would not, which is an overview of disrespectful terms for heads of state. Why then should the converse, not be equally valid? But monarchs traditionally adopt (usually themselves) honorifics such as "Defender of the Faith"- in the case in point, we have external sources, in specialist fields (subject to pruning of unreliable and trivial sources) assessing artists' contributions to their field at the time. The topic may suffer from recentism, as I've already pointed out, but many of the titles in the article are of credible longevity, and go beyond being mere "nicknames", which are two a penny. Attention to sourcing and perhaps adopting a "two-source", "not merely transitory" approach would be a start. I I reiterate: I don't think this topic is beyond rescue. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could re-state the portions of their arguments that I found compelling; but I don't think its necc. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though they have been discounted and challenged? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaborate please. What should we rename this non-subject to? What article can we merge with? indopug (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few options have been proposed above (I am reluctant to repeat myself) for either a general rename or a split into genre specific articles and as for merging as even a number of the deletes say, the items cited in reliable sources can at worst be added to the actual articles on these musicians. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, your use of Chewbacca defense is admirable. indopug (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THanks! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, some of the article's editors don't seem to hear the nature of the problems that need fixing, some of which are core to the entire article. --Bejnar (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: in the interest of acheiving some kind of consensus I've left neutral requests for more input on this discussion at the Administrator's noticeboard and the Content noticeboard.Exploding Boy (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)</small.> [reply]

  • Comment I don't have a very strong, fully-informed opinion on whether to keep or delete, but I've been asked to comment here because I've been involved in editing the article, so I will say that in perusing it and this Talk Page, I agree that these seem more like nicknames than honorifics. But more importantly, I don't think that you can establish these statuses (stati?) by mere one source, even if it's a good one, because at issue is whether these nicknames have been adopted by the entertainment industry widely. Michael Jackson's title as the "King of Pop" has been adopted widely, not only by the music industry, but is referenced in satire (standup comedian Richard Jeni's show A Good Little Catholic Boy, for example). By contrast, when Lauren Gitlin of Rolling Stone refers to Ciara as the "Princess of Crunk", the question needs to be addressed as to whether this is simply a bit of half-serious praise or POV by the writer of one article, or a moniker that's penetrated the public consciousness like "King of Pop" or "Queen of Soul" have. This is an important point, and I have a feeling that lots of these titles would not stand up to that latter standard. Going through each one of these titles to assess this would be an excruciating task, but it is necessary, IMO, and the Delete/Keep debate should be predicated on that very point. Hope this helps. Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two problems need to be addressed to justify keeping the article. A) the opening sentence says "Honorific titles are often conferred upon popular music artists for their contributions to the field." Conferred? By who?! These are neither titles nor honorifics. An alternative is hard to find, but perhaps "honorific nicknames" will do. Article needs renaming. B) All sources should be removed from the article - everything should be properly sourced in the artist articles (and properly sourced means indicating widespread usage). As part of indicating widespread usage, titles should only be included where editors agree to have a redirect for that title to a particular artist (and the title is also mentioned in the lede of the artist article). Rd232 talk 17:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only thing this article needs is a real good cleaning out. Too many poor cites, too many inferences used for references. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2009 (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.

More