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. While many of the !votes in favor of keep were essentially WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING or some other permutation of a non-policy based argument that can generally be dismissed, it has also been argued that the information here is sourced. This debate certainly shows that the article is problematic, I cannot find sufficient will to delete at this time. Whether the ultimate "cure" is future deletion, editorial improvement of the existing article or merging this information elsewhere is yet to be seen, but for better or worse this discussion cannot determine that outcome. Shereth 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Delete per common sense say's this is a load of gibberish. The articles references are not formatted, many of the sources themselves come from unreliable places. The article is full of pov wording and has as much notability as myself. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 09:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to opening statement This article is in violation of Wikipedia is not a directory—"Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." indopug (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything at Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory that is applicable to this article. Which item are you referencing? --Elliskev 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia might one day be used as a reference from which to check other sources, as in such-and-such newspaper referred to so-and-so as the King/Queen/Ambassador of Pop/Rock on such-and-such date--you might be interested in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. We are an encyclopedia not some "reference" for future generations to use to find out who the media were hyping up on a particular day. indopug (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link you kindly provided refers to the five pillars. I consider that the article, suitably copy-edited and wikified, is covered by each of the 5P. --Technopat (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"interesting" is not a criteria for an article's notability. indopug (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the topics, not the articles, which are notable or not. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". Seems like a rather indiscriminate collection of information; rather subjectively, often randomly, awarded titles by the press have been compiled together. indopug (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like a List? This collection doesn't seem to be 'indiscriminate'. What if it was called List of Honorific titles conferred upon popular musicians? --Elliskev 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almanacs, which the article could easily be classified as, are specifically included under the first pillar of five pillars. --Technopat (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link you kindly provided says, "An almanac is an annual publication containing tabular information in a particular field or fields often arranged according to the calendar." indopug (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia articles are not meant to give "MUSIC LOVER[s] ... a brief summary about why this person is called King or queen". [WP:V|Sourcing]]/copy-editing is not the issue here; this article violates WP:NOT, more specifically Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory—"Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." Keep !voters, please also see WP:INTERESTING. indopug (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can just as easily point you to WP:IDONTCARE. The point would be just as invalid. The onus is on delete !voters to explain how this article fails to meet inclusion criteria. So let's look at the arguments for deletion.
The OP (Realist2) started this AfD with deletion reasons of load of gibberish, references are not formatted, sources themselves come from unreliable places, full of pov wording, and notability. Two of those are relevant to a discussion on deletion.
Is the article a load of gibberish?? By every measure imaginable, no, it is not a load of gibberish. A load of gibberish is an article containing nothing but ASS ASS ASS ASS ASS ASS.
Is the article notable? Well, what does that mean?
Does it mean that the content in not notable? If so, the answer is no. The content is obviously notable. Every musician listed in the article has an article, and they are all notable musicians.
Does it mean that the format is not notable? If so, show me the standard.
Now, regarding the delete !vote There's no reason why all these "honorifics" need to be compiled into one article... Is that really a discussion point? It sounds like an assertion to me. Is there any policy or guideline to back that up? --Elliskev 12:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note the additional statement I've added above. I agree that "gibberish" and "poorly formatted references" is irrelevant. I've pointed out that the content doesn't meet our "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy. indopug (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See response below your above. --Elliskev 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you there, if this was a scholarly article with a critical analysis on the practice of the media to use terminology such as "king of pop" (with a few suitable examples), it'd be a different (if there are reliable sources who have already done such analysis of course). However, this article is only a collection of whom branded the media a "king of"/"queen of". Further, supporters of the article also defend this collection of phrases, suggesting that it be renamed to "List of honorific titles in popular music" and that in the future, users can find that "such-and-such newspaper referred to so-and-so as the King/Queen/Ambassador of Pop/Rock on such-and-such date". There is no need to have articles that merely lists a bunch of similar journalistic catch-phrases; that's not what an encyclopedia is for. indopug (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Bios and facts are good. Idol status has nothing to do with record sales on the page because some were just influential but didnt sell that much like Roy Acuff, B.B King,Dinah Washington. If Duke Ellington crowned Peggy Lee the queen well this so just added peggy lee to the page. It wouldnt be the first time theres more than one person who has a title. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the page its fine because it takes the most notable of names with a legacy to back them up which people know or heard of. Its not a list of just anybody. Then theres the common sense your not gonna go to like 2004 and say the best movie was Soul Plane if it was like Spiderman lol. Its the name thats most notable.

Comment Keep per the balancing scale in favor of keep lol. Anyway. It could be the same with honorific titles given by the royal family. Example

Honorable titles to artist is no different no matter from company/media/fans if its well known and circulated. The "king/queen/prince/etc." is notable to the title because I dont think the word honor in any form can not be suitable to a King/queen/godfather/etc if given to them. regards Kelvin Martinez (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you dont because the point you were just trying to make is that the article "lists artists by their title, instead of addressing the supposed topic of "Honorific titles in popular music". Thats like saying the Honoress in the Rock an Roll hall of fame page doesnt address the topic of Honorees in the rock and roll hall of fame it's just a list of musicians that the press has given titles to" when in fact the article gives examples/facts/references as to why their honorific and how they earned that title. But If you dont see what im seeing then whats your suggestion to addressing proper context and background to establish the subject like you said? Kelvin Martinez (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Honorees in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" is a list that compliments a topic that is notable: the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. This article has no foundation; it's just a list of musician grouped by the nicknames they have been given. There's no topic here. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is honorific titles in popular music. The foundation is paragraphs/facts/references. Some of the usual wiki stuff... List? This isnt the first list of music related. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to establish that the topic of honorific titles in popular music is discussed as a whole in secondary sources. There's currently no proof of that. Unless you do, there's no topic and this is just a list of trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What needs to be established is that this is a page thats just growing. Just like every article it needs time to grow. If the title bugs you that bad maybe it should be changed to list of titles of popular music. Regards Kelvin Martinez (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is the basic topic is flawed. It's still a collection of trivia until the notability of the topic is established. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title just might need to be changed but that still doesnt have to be a reason for the article to be deleted. Over the past few days its gotten much better through the efforts of admins and regular people who want to help it. So many people are doing a good job. The article is only getting better. Theres no section like this in any of the artist main articles so I believe its relevant because this things people will look up and get an idea why they got that title. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently not be improved in the most important way: justifying its existence. Most of the citations are for awards and sales for individual artists. Even that is problematic because those are being included in order to justify someones title, which is unacceptable because that turns this article into a series of essay that essentially say "This is why this artist has earned this title". The "quick facts" format doesnt help. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S Wesley......we need to be on CNN lmao Kelvin Martinez (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, I see that this article serves a useful purpose. By concentrating nickname "titles" of musical artists in one place, it is possible to compare and contrast them. Ideally, I'd like to see all of these "titles" be merged into this article as redirects to the appropriate section. IMO that would make more sense than having to worry about a dozen or more fairly useless little articles like King of Rock and Roll. That information WILL be searched for, and to be a comprehensive, encyclopedic reference source Wikipedia needs to make that information available. I think that this article is the best way.
As an example, the aforementioned King of Rock and Roll correctly claims (but which does NOT appear here,) that while Elvis Presley is widely regaled with that honorific, there are other contenders, including Chuck Berry and (the self-acclaimed) Long John Baldry, among others. There are several ways in which this information could be presented:
  1. Each relevant artist article could include the artist's title, and a search would hopefully return them all to the visitor
  2. Each title can have a disambiguation page, that must then have more content than is customary in order to justify the various links and claims
  3. Each title can have a separate article (with redirects for alternate spellings, etc.,) that would need its own sources and need to be monitored and reviewed by reliable editors
  4. All titles can redirect to sections of this one article (as I prefer)
This last solution makes all of the information readily available, keeps it in one place for editors to keep an eye on, and by its nature will present an example to people adding new entries to what kind of format to use, the need for references, etc.
My (twenty-)two cents. :) --Eliyahu S Talk 13:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just implemented part of my suggestion for the specific case of King of Rock and Roll by merging the text there into the appropriate section in the article, but did not do the redirect. --Eliyahu S Talk 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean?? Kelvin Martinez (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"King of Rock & Roll," "King of Pop," "Princess of Pop," these at least have superficial similarities. "Chairman of the Board" is just of the form "X of Y," but with X not being a title of royalty and Y not actually referring to music, so it's sui generis (like Springsteen as "The Boss") and has nothing to do with the others except that it's a superlative nickname. I've never known why Sinatra was called that. That would be useful information. It's not useful or relevant to Sinatra to know that Garth Brooks has been called the King of Country. Lumping these together accomplishes nothing. The lists of their accomplishments also seems completely beside the point; the most relevant information would be who first called them by the nickname and why. It's not for us to infer from a list of accomplishments why they might deserve the superlative nicknames if we can't actually find sources making that connection. Postdlf (talk) 15:31, 14 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.
More