Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artist exploitation


 * 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   delete. JForget 00:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Artist exploitation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

"Exploitation" is not a "phenomenon" (i.e. A state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning) plus there is a poverty of reliable sources which combine these two words as a common name. Pinned together with a "Boycott The RIAA" external link, this article whiffs of WP:SOAP. Wikispan (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is an issue in the music biz, but an encyclopedia article would have to be far better sourced (from research in entertainment law, possibly) and better constructed than this. In its current form it could become an indiscriminate list if examples of ripped-off musicians are added, and it'll always be soapy without much stronger sources. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 18:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge: Actually, artist exploitation is indeed a phenomenon -- it has taken place since before recorded history and in defense of it, a foundational theory of copyright law, better known in legalese as "droit de suite", was created. I edited the article to reflect this, but perhaps the article should merge, with another article having to do with copyright law. Sctechlaw (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —  D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 18:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete  over -general article coving a very nonspecific and broad topic. No evidence for this being a standard phrase.  DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Feel there are a multitude of problems with this article. But in particular;  the word  "artist" in modern usage is very very vague.  as a term it dose not describe an identifiable  sub group with clear economic or social  commonalities in  any  modern  society  . The term can refer to almost anybody human  and thus 'artist' exploitation' is not  by its nature a definable concept. There is frankly a lot of sentimentality and fog  around the usage of the term 'artist'.
 * 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.