Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1951 in British music


 * 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. John254 02:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1951 in British music

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article serves little purpose. Ideally if we lived in a perfect world, There would be an article for many years of "british music" but since that would be impossible, This atricle serves little purposes and I see no possibility of it being improved enough to actually meet the criteria of an article. The info could easily be incorporated into a numerous number of other articles  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This needs editing, not deletion, and it at least tries to have references.  Nothing in the nomination suggests that the subject is not notable, or that the research presented is so original that it violates policy - only that 1951 was an uninteresting year in British music. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lack of notability isn't the only reason to delete an article.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out what those reasons might be, other than that it's badly edited and would seem to be part of an unfinished series. The text is not so impertinent to the title subject, nor so irretrievably bad that it would be better to start from scratch. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically it serves no purpose as an article. Articles need to serve purposes and need to be something that people are willing to read and can learn from. This article selects an arbitrary date in a specific country and tries (badly) to explain the advances in music from that specific time and place. This in itself wouldn't be so bad but unless we can have 1953 in British music, 1954 in British music, 1955 in British music etc then it really serves no purpose. Moreover, Even if we had every year of every decade of "in British music" it wouldn't in itself serve any purpose. A better approach might be British music in the 1950s and British music in the 1960s etc. In my opinion the text is indeed in the shape that starting from scratch would be ideal, or perhaps not starting at all and simply merging the relevant information to specific articles such as Music of the United Kingdom (1950s and 60s).  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that we do actually have 1952 in British music, which apparently is significant because this represents the inception of popular song popularity charts in the UK. The two articles should perhaps share a common fate.  Claims of  "uselessness" aren't usually considered to be strong arguments for deleting an article.  Nor is the fact that it may be a long time before future articles in a series are created, nor the fact that a series may never be complete.  - Smerdis of Tlön 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That says that the argument to avoid is saying something is "useless" without context or elaboration. IMO all of the relevant info of those pages could be merged into Music of the United Kingdom (1950s and 60s).  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Merge discussions don't need to come to AfD. Put a merge tag on it and be done with it! Canuckle 20:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly, But this is much more efficient for getting opinions on the article and what to do with it. Merge tags have a tendency to stay on articles for months at a time.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and format better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. The article needs work but there are sources. It does indicate that some notable events happened in British music such as the opening of the Royal Festival Hall and the debut of Billy Budd. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have lots of these kind of articles (like 2007 in British music, 2007 in Irish music, 2007 in country music, 2007 in heavy metal music), and they can be sourced and do "meet the criteria of an article". The fact that we don't have 1953 in British music, 1954 in British music, and 1955 in British music doesn't mean that those articles can't be created and sourced and expanded with a little research. If it turns out that there is not enough to tell about a certain year in British music, you could merge them all into one article titled "British music in the 1950s", but you don't need AFD for that. This article just needs a lot of cleanup, but that can be done.  Melsaran  (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  15:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. per Melsaran. - Rocket000 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.