Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analysis of Shakira's musical work


 * 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. A few ideas have surfaced in this discussion which might be resolved through editing, so I'd recommend continuing this in article talk or on the appropriate WikiProject and seeing if the synthesis and content fork issues can be resolved otherwise. If not, no prejudice against a renomination in some time. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of Shakira's musical work

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Okay, this is a very well-sourced, well written article. Unfortunately, it is WP:SYNTH. The article is not about the analysis of Shakira's work, it IS an analysis of her work. Therefore it is WP:OR.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems fine, it's well sourced and talks about the aspects of her work in the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * except that a lot of it is duplicated content from elsewhere, which is the reason why a lot of it is well-sourced and well-written – see my comment below. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Duplicated as in Copyright violation, or duplication as in it appears in other articles on wiki? The editors always use their judgement in what to include in an article. It's only really OR if they conclude something different than what an article says or if they go out and do the research themselves. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue I have is that everything you say above is not incorrect, however, the editor has added their own editorial judgement to much of the article, which makes it WP:OR.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed – for example, the first line of the "Recognitions" section starts, "According to some media and the general public, Shakira is considered 'the most influential Latin female artist of all time'"... no, the source doesn't say that, it calls her the most influential artist in the world right now, and that's according to only one publication, and no mention of the public at all. And in any case, what does this have to do with the analysis of her musical work? Richard3120 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a rewrite, not a reason for deleting the entire article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, which is why I haven't voted to delete. It was just an example of the OR that the nominator has highlighted, which is prevalent with this editor's articles, along with addition of irrelevant material. Richard3120 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * KeepI searched various sources for information, everything has its respective source that talks about her music and her musical work, the analysis is made by magazines such as Billboard, Rolling Stone critics among other media outlets, in addition to the fact that Shakira has received all kinds of recognition due to her music work. AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: the big problem with this editor's creations is that they are creating a lot of what I believe are WP:CONTENTFORKs and repetition of information already found elsewhere. For example, the section Analysis of Shakira's musical work is largely a copy and paste of Laundry Service and Oral Fixation, Vol. 2. Other parts are replicated in Cultural impact of Shakira. This could be a worthwhile article, but the article creator pumps out an enormous amount of Shakira content at such a rate it's very difficult to find the time to sit down and go through everything and see what has been duplicated over several of their articles. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with duplicating small chunks of analysis into a larger one that combines them, that's really what wiki is for. I doubt there's been much peer-reviewed analysis of her work in scholarly journals the article creator can use as sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but personally I don't think it should be wholesale copy and pastes. Richard3120 (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm a little concerned about overlap between this article and another they worked on, Cultural impact of Shakira. I remember that reading that one and being a little shocked that so much analysis had gone into studying a pop music singer. I'm not arguing for Delete for either article right now. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just reading the table of contents of that article makes my head hurt. But this overlap is exactly my concern as well. I do think there are some good articles in there trying to get out, but they are overwhelming at the moment and really need to be trimmed down and split into distinct articles. And then there is Shakira impersonator (which I definitely think should be merged elsewhere), Shakira Fandom... Richard3120 (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmirŞah  21:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, irredeemably OR. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete this overlapping, OR-laden synthesis. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, The article seems fine, and it uses verified sources to support its information, I don't think it should be deleted, just corrected or edited following some of the suggestions of the comments above mine. Juan12353 (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC) — Juan12353 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, I think the page collects relevant and quite interesting information for fans and non-fans alike. Must not be deleted 177.236.115.208 (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Being "interesting" in your opinion is not a valid argument for keeping the article, based on Wikipedia guidelines - see WP:INTERESTING. Richard3120 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as there aren't strong policy arguments to keep or delete beyond claiming it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR without specifics. There seems to be some consensus that the article is well-sourced which indicates to me a No consensus result unless some examples or SYNTH or OR can be presented.
 * Keep, although it needs quite a bit of editing; much needs clarification and additional citations. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

I did make a comment in this discussion but I don't think it makes me INVOLVED as I wasn't arguing for the Keep or Delete of this article just stating that I saw some overlap between articles on this subject. But, just in case that anyone has misgivings, I'll let another admin actually close this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 23 November 2022 (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.