Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorific titles in popular 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   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)

Honorific titles in popular music

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (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. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 09:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * I don't see anything at NOT that is applicable to this article. Which item are you referencing? --Elliskev 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article is/was admittedly in pretty lousy shape but the person starting the article specifically requested time to edit it better, and it has since been wikified to a certain extent. The fact that editors are not fully skilled in Wikipedia policies, the English language, etc. is not a reason for an article to be deleted. Rather, more experienced editors can devote time to copy-editing. --Technopat (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we followed the rule of "Rather, more experienced editors can devote time to copy-editing.", articles would never get deleted. Even if the article ever were to become a well written piece, that won't change the fact that its pointless. Im sure an article on another Pokemon character would be better *wink wink* — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 10:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - seems too subjective (WP:OR -ish) who is included. BBC for instance has Kylie and not Britney as "Princess of Pop"  and Guardian cites Jimmy Cliff as "King of Reggae" .  Either the choice is going to end up subjective or its going to be an infinitely extending list whenever a journalist used 'king' as hyperbole. Top sellers by genre would tend to get you the same sort of info but be easier to define. -Hunting dog (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The lede mentions the possibility of various contenders for a title. As an ongoing project, Wikipedia is inevitably updated every time a reputable source such as The Guardian, the BBC, etc. comes up with another candidate for using hyperbole with. Thanks for your references - will add them to the article :) Regards, --Technopat (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with hunting (not literally), for example, when most people hear "King of Pop", we thing of Mr.Jackson (rightfully so I might add). However I have even read sources where Justin Timberlake or Usher have been called the "King of Pop" be reasonably well regarded sources. Hell, someone call me the "king of Pop", get it printed in a magazine and I can be on the list. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 11:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has at least two overriding criteria for inclusion in an article: notability and reliable sources. The fact that an artist's best friend is also the journalist conferring the honorific title is - unfortunately - irrelevant. The world of entertainment is regretably full of mediocrity but that is also irrelevant to Wikipedia. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: There's no reason why all these "honorifics" need to be compiled into one article. indopug (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can think of at least one reason: 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. And just for the record, why not turn your statement round and ask: "Why don't we all include all these "honorifics" in one article?" Regards, --Technopat (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep I'm inclined to vote keep. The article is non-standard but interesting, and at least it's about real people not Pokemon or Warhammer characters. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "interesting" is not a criteria for an article's notability. indopug (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the topics, not the articles, which are notable or not. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Which specific deletion reason(s) apply to this article? --Elliskev 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep After looking this over, and thinking this over, I can't see any reason to get rid of this article. In fact, it's pretty interesting. Sure, it needs work. Why was this nominated, again? --Elliskev 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting is not anything to do with notability. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 21:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is notability the basis of your nomination? What measure of notability are you using? --Elliskev 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I trust Realist2's judgment on this. Plus, "honorific"? Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia.-- Xp54321 ( Hello! • Contribs ) 22:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Realist2's judgment is not a valid reason for deletion. --Elliskev 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, my judgment is law, I am power! Hehe. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree with realist2 this is in no way a copy-edit kind of work. I spent a week working on it and rewriting it and I made sure that all the RESOURCES WERE RELIABLE.I then displayed to the Wikipedians. Its just like writing your own book and sending it off to editors. When editing it, the editors will alway find varies problem they can attended to. Its called the WRITING PROCESS. At first the references were not displayed accurately, but that never meant that the sources werent there. Secondly it was NEVER POINT OF VIEW because when the references were finally displayed in a more notable fashion, you can see out 114 LINKS, 2 NEEDED to be resourced. I called upon SEVERAL ADMINS, if you look in the History of the page, to fix up and review it. Some came graciously by their own will. Thirdly there is A PURPOSE FOR THIS PAGE. If any MUSIC LOVER wanted to find out about a brief summary about why this person is called King or queen they can look at this  article and get a quick idea while it still redirects you to the singers main page. Finally In all encyclopedias most information is a brief summary of the subject/title/person. The page is INTERESTING, RELIABLE, AND DOESNT LACK NOBABILITY. Keep It.  Kelvin Martinez (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 NOT—"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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * See response below your above. --Elliskev 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. In many respects, the real debate should probably be about the form which the article takes. "Honorific titles in music" is an article topic, with substantial notability in various countries. I think distilling this down to focus more on the use and variety of such titles is probably more appropriate than a list of people who may or may not hold said titles (but who could still be included throughout the article as examples). Hiberniantears (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep: After reviewing this discussion and the article content, the balance between keep and delete seems to be tipped in favor of keep:
 * There are credible arguments that the article topic itself merits coverage in WP, rendering the issue one of stylistic improvements, *not* an issue of keep versus delete;
 * There is evidence that WP contributors have been making a consistent and good faith effort to improve the substance of the article itself;
 * The concerns voiced favoring deletion seem to be either not adequately substantiated or already addressed (see e.g., Elliskev above). dr.ef.tymac (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Needs work, but better sourced, written and referenced than a lot of other cruft we have here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Seems to pass WP:NOTDIR. As it says under the first bullet: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as … quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional) … Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Article does need a lot of work though. DiverseMentality  (Discuss it)  02:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WesleyDodds's reasonings. Trivial nicknames with no secondary sourcing. DiverseMentality  (Discuss it)  02:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete The into is so poorly written with regard to Wiki standards it's a joke. Idol status seems to stem purely from record sales. Purely for my part, writer shows poor knowledge with regard to Jazz music. A key sign of Billie Holiday's importance is tht she was an influence on Mariah Cariey? God help us. Didn't Duke Ellington crown Peggy Lee the Queen? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Comment - Have been following this with interest since my earlier Weak Delete !vote - and as some people are asking for justification from the delete voters: I'm still concerned that this format of article is stuck between WP:OR (if editors are making value judgements about who's in or out) and an ever extending list - in WP policy terms falling under WP:NOTDIR #Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations (Artist from genre 'x' who at some stage was called honorific 'y').  The 'King' thing is tending to confuse the debate, but its similar to trying to have a "Movie of the Year 2007" page and including anything that got called that in a review.  Having a page for "Oscar winners 2007", which is clearly defined, works; having page for "Highest grossing movies 2007" works (again verifiable and easily defined list) but just pulling out any film that got called "movie of the year" in a review, or making value judgements about how many times it got called it doesn't, as far as encyclopaedic rather than interesting content is concerned.-Hunting dog (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * Delete per Hunting Dog and others. The main flaw with this article is that it simply lists artists by their title, instead of addressing the supposed topic of "Honorific titles in popular music" itself. Without proper context and background to establish why the subject of "honorific titles in popular music" is notable, it's just a list of musicians that the press has given "king/queen/prince/etc." titles to, and that does not warrant an encyclopedia article. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * Sir Paul Macarthney
 * Sir Elton John
 * I don't understand the point you are trying to make. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

P.S Wesley......we need to be on CNN lmao Kelvin Martinez (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your wrong most of the citations are from Rock and Roll HOF, BBC, City News, Music Choice, aol music etc. I dont see your point about the article being a series of essays when wikipedia itself looks more like a website filled with essays then a traditional encyclopedia. Your right about one thing, the awards and sales are there to justify there title but I think it also adds a better understanding of what they've done for music and thats no way problamtic like you said (It has references). Whats It's Justifaction? It provides some information thats relevant to the artist success thats not always found on the artists main article. It displays info about the titles that media/company/fans have given to them thats notable in music and their history. The article is different but it still holds a place here like what the people who said "keep" said. But just like everyone said it needs a better formatted establishment but still no reason to be deleted because its underconstruction. People are making it better. Articles should not always be were they were born, were they performed, and were they died. Other key facts are always notable. Regards.
 * Selective Merge and Delete - There is some good information here and possible some good references as well, but it's a royal mess. Take the good into the individiual biographical articles (I'm guessing most of it's already there), and delete this article.  There are articles which are lists of people who have received specific honors (halls of fame, specific awards, etc.) but this is a list of those lists and that's just not necessary and not maintainable. The people are notable, the honors are notable but that doesn't necessarily extend to this collection of awards. This article is not notable and it needs to go.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree that much of this information:
 * should be distributed to referenced articles
 * could use some serious copyediting
 * is "fluffier" than many other Wikipedia articles
 * may not even be "notable" in the usual WP sense.
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Delete per well-reasoned arguments by User:WesleyDodds above. Nothing establishes that these "honorifics" have any connection to each other, or that the usage of faux-royalty titles in American English has in itself been collected, compared, or studied.  It is then just a matter of superficial and trivial coincidence that "king of ___" or "queen of ___" get recycled or prolifically used, perhaps attributable to nothing more than the public's lack of imagination or vocabulary, and it seems completely arbitrary to limit it to popular music.  Postdlf (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually came across this article from Frank Sinatra, referring to his "title" of Chairman of the Board, which has nothing to do with royalty. --Eliyahu S Talk 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And then it has even less to do with "Princess of Pop." Postdlf (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean?? Kelvin Martinez (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "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)


 * Delete. A magnet for original research. At the very least, hack out all the totally redundant descriptive material and condense to a very, very skinny list. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   14:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I've worked on Sinatra on a model that might help. I've deleted the obituary quote and replaced it with the origin of the nickname. It can be found internally, at Reprise Records.  I've now sourced it, in a footnote, to MIT's The Tech (newspaper). If the article were restructured along this line, it might answer some of the objections above. Also, "The Boss" and "The Chairman of the Board" ARE honorifics. An honorific need not be royal.  An honorific is a grammatical form used in speaking to or about a social superior.  At least according to my trusty Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition. David in DC (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; per above comments. No need to rehash. NSR 77  T C  21:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a xclearly useful article, collecting information that can be easily sourced. Appropriate function for an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2008 (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.