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 no consensus to delete. Uncited claims, especially about real people, can be removed. W.marsh 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal crack[edit]

Note: Adding a nom for speedy delete as a violation of WP:BLP without prejudice to constructing a properly sourced article on this subject later. See comments below. Original AfD nom follows: --Shirahadasha 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all my time as a wikipedia editor I've never been as shocked as I was by this largely ignored article. Things that shocked me:

"While accessing the whistle register, Chanté Moore's voice cracked on the phrase "Here We Go", when she covered the Minnie Riperton classic." - this smacks of 2 things, libelous slander about one singer, and obsessive fandom of another. It's also original research.

The article's subject is just the passaggio. Puberty already has its in depth info on voice changes in boys and girls.

Nothing links here.

"vocal cords catch up to their developing larynges, as the vocal adductor muscles struggle to regain their strength at this new speaking voice pitch" is complete hogwash & original research you won't find anywhere else.

"For example, a singer may sing a particular note in the head register softly, but upon trying to increase the volume and pull the note into the chest register" 'pulling' a note into chest from head is actually technically impossible in 99% of the vocal range.

The article has no sources. The article will never have any sources - nobody edits it. It is largely abandoned. It also duplicates another article - passaggio which effort should be focused on. I'd nom it for speedy but i've never done that before. It's all original research. --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 03:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for nowI can't speak to the veracity of the article, but then again neither can the article. I've tagged it as needing sources in the hopes of getting its author's attention (assuming the AfD hasn't already done that). If, after a reasonable length of time, nobody knowledgeable in voice finds a reason to annotate this article properly I will support its deletion. Flakeloaf 04:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links to the article, and one person edits it every 6 months, and it's just full of gushing fan-cruft, but sure, why not give it the 5 days it takes to go through AfD? If it's ever going to be fixed up, it'll be during these 5 days. Certainly some possible time in 4 years isn't worth waiting for though.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 05:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep unlesss there's a more technical term for this, in which case redirect. Notable term. Just because the article sucks is no reason to delete it. Clean-up instead.--SeizureDog 07:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now, else Redirect Two different issues: 1) the legitimacy of the term 'Vocal crack' and 2) the nonsense that's written about. It's obvious to me that the article needs work for a) references and sources, and b) may contain an unconventional school of thought on singing, so on that grounds it needs a rewrite. But the bone of contention is (1) : the legitimacy of the term 'Vocal crack'. Consider leaving the article for a while or consider Redirecting. Rfwoolf 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a violation of WP:BLP. This article has no sources at all, including no sources for the featured claims that various singers' voices have cracked in various situations. Agree that these sorts of claims are potentially libelous and making them unsourced is a potentially serious violation of WP:BLP. --Shirahadasha 18:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to passagio which could use some work to be accessible to none experts. Do not merge unsourced material. Eluchil404 10:58, 26 January 2007 (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.