Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorific titles in popular music (3rd nomination)


 * 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   speedy keep. recent AfD, no policy based reason for nom. TravellingCari 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Honorific titles in popular music
Article is just ridiculous. Trivial, unsourced, uncitable, target for idiots, just plain stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petchboo (talk • contribs)


 * Comment - see also Articles for deletion/Honorific titles in popular music (no consensus) and Articles for deletion/Honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination) (withdrawn).--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep: Actually this article is currently watchlisted and maintained by at least three established editors (including an admin). The article is for ever improving and the majority of the article is well sourced, poor sources need replacing (that is not a criteria for deletion). This has amounted to a pointy, bad faith nomination indeed. — Realist  2  17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Realist2. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The article has 146 references. It would take a more thorough nomination statement to convince me that the article should be considered unsourced. Surely there has not been time for very much to have changed since the last AfD. In that case, why are we here? Just plain stupid is not very convincing as a reason for deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep on grounds that it passed its previous AFD only a few months ago when the nomination was withdrawn in the face of a WP:SNOW keep scenario. The nomination criteria given this time is completely invalid as it's a textbook case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, given that the nomination was not even signed, leads me to question if this was even a good faith nomination. 23skidoo (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no interest in this article whatsoever, and was about to speedy close it for the reason 23s gives above. However, the first afd failed to achieve any consensus, and the second was closed early. So we don't have any established consensus that this article should be kept. Given that, I can't see any harm in allowing this debate to run for a while and establish where consensus really lies. The nomination may not be great (and who knows what motivated it) but that's neither here nor there. If there's no strong deletion argument being made in 24/48 hours then we can close early.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The nomination is completely incorrect: as noted above, this is altogether the opposite of "unsourced and uncited". Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination is a textbook case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:29, 8 October 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.