Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010s in 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   redirect to 2010 in music. A tricky one. I believe the redirect is the best solution for a while, most of the content can be merged to that article. For now. Tone 00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

2010s in music

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nice crystal ball gazing. We can't say anything yet about 2010 in music, let alone the whole decade. Fences &amp;  Windows  04:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy with a redirect to 2010 in music. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as the decade has now begun, encyclopaedic events will be recorded here ( though at the times of its nomination, perhaps the article should have been deleted ...oops..should have double checked the date there). Handschuh-talk to me 05:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 08:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2010 in music until 2011 rolls around. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. But keep it simple. DriveMySol (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete No need to start the new year by wasting time.  G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. Шизомби (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Drmies. This is a new decade and it can not expand because the recent last decade (2000s) had ended. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 14:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't seem necessary for the reasons given above. Additionally, none of the statements in the current article are about the decade itself - rather than 2010 - except ones which are unsourced or sourced to references which aren't about the 2010s. I'd advocate redirection to 2010 in music over deletion as a very likely search term, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete what a stupid article. Electropop is wank. Seriously, clearly not encyclopedia suitable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.225.16 (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Utter crystalballery at this extremely early stage in the decade. --A1octopus (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Some artists have albums planned for 2011 and onwards already, so there is content that can only go here. Zazaban (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: And when those albums are actually released, then we can revisit the subject. Until then, this is absolutely a WP:CRYSTAL violation.   Ravenswing  16:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CRYSTAL calamity: speculation about the future with some padding. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Already, there are signs, this is not crystal. There are two sources so far, and with the 2010s already in progress, there will only be more with each passing week. It does not make sense to delete it, then recreate it a week or two later, as will inevitably happen. Sebwite (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Zz above, the decade is here so there's no need to delete something that will be recreated, it's just very young. Recreate when we get around to creating 2011 in music.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 13:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect. Because there is significant coverage for a notable artist's future plans, there is no shortage of reliable sources, which prevent WP:CRYSTAL from being invoked. For example, there is already NPR coverage of a Brokeback Mountain opera, even though it will not be premiere for years. MMetro (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Until 2011, this and 2010 in music are redundant. Or at least until there is reliably sourced information about events beyond 2010, which there isn't yet (at least not in the article as currently written).  That said, the 2010s are here, so this is not a WP:CRYSTAL issue anymore.  And deletion does not seem warranted, since redirection would resolve all the stated issues and the article title is a likely search term. Rlendog (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added events scheduled to happen in 2011 and 2012. DriveMySol (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Not only does it fail WP:CRYSTAL, but in the context (and looking at the previous decade articles) the article is full of WP:RECENT content. It is way too early to define a decade. How notable is X tour/album release by X band in 5 years? That belongs in 2010 in music. Nymf talk/contr. 03:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment you guys are acting like it's still the 2000s. Why shouldn't there be an article for 2010s in music when it IS the 2010s? DriveMySol (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Handschuh and Zazaban. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  duumvirate  ─╢ 08:39, 6 January 2010 (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.