Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of clichés in music (2nd 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 Delete - while Uncle G's work is interesting, it was a complete rewrite of the section and it hasn't been followed up by anybody else (either to fill in the gaps or delete the uncited info) and, per the nomination and Mak's comments, there is no reason to suspect it will be. Yomangani talk 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

List of clichés in music
As it says in the prominent "noncompliant" tag on the page, this article is full of original research and unverifiable claims. As well, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous debate here. Axem Titanium 04:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Quale 05:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete like all OR lists of cliches. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think this article's topic is inheritantly OR. Music critics/reviewers commonly use "cliché" to describe music. One only need to verify a claim of "cliché X" by finding a review for "song Y" or "album Z" that examplifies the cliché. This article may contain entries that are WP:OR but that's a matter of cleanup, not whether this article should exist. —Mitaphane talk 06:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. &mdash; Khoikhoi 06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Riki 07:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Danny Lilithborne 08:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if it's not OR yet, it will be soon. If it somehow avoids that fate, it'll be all over the place and very hard to maintain as well as being unverifiable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weakest of weak keeps per the verifiability exercise of Uncle G below (now). It still feels like listcruft, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if it's verging on an indiscriminate collection of information (combining information on hip-hop music and 15th century Italian court music seems ever so slightly odd) even if every pixel is verifiable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We-ell, i woke up this morning, and i voted to Delete this article as per the nomination above, ohhhh yeahhhhhhh. *drum solo*. OBM | blah blah blah 09:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 09:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, title alone makes this inherently subjective and unworkable. Deizio talk 11:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As an exercise in testing the preceding claims that this is original research and impossible to construct in a verifiable manner, I've attacked the list of clichés in music section with the merciless sword of verifiability, and discovered that it is possible to construct a list of verifiable lyrical clich&eacute;s. All of the items now in the list have citations to people identifying the clich&eacute;s in question.  The cited sources are not simply song reviewers saying "song X contains clich&eacute; Y", as Mitaphane suggests above, but are people specifically identifying a lyrical clich&eacute; in its own right, independent of any specific songs. Given that it is evidently possible to construct that section in a verifiable manner, without performing any primary research (e.g. reading and analysing song lyrics directly), it seems likely that it is possible to do the same for the other sections.  (If it isn't, then we can simply erase them.)  The problems with this article don't require an administrator to hit a delete button.  They require ordinary editors to exercise the same merciless sword of verifiability across the rest of the article that I've exercised over one section, and to insist upon sources for any future additions, to stop editors from adding their own personal notions of clich&eacute;s to the article.  Administrators aren't required for that.  Even editors without accounts can do that.  Keep.  Uncle G 15:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G, although I despise listcruft there does appear to be at least some verifiable basis for this list. Needless to say it should be edited mercilessly to remove the uncited parts. Guy 15:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep information is interesting, and I can see no reason why not. -Patstuart 21:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * delete, (swayed from a swift and firm kill with fire by UncleG), although the article is conceivably fully sourcable, the subject is simply too huge to make a meaningful list. Each genre and period of music has its own cliches. What would be a cliche in a madrigal might be seen as an innovation in a rap song. Ok, I admit that I added the 16th century thing a while ago, because I ran into it in a source. I think a more specific list might make sense and be encyclopedic, but the scope of this list is simply too huge. It applies to Gregorian chant, rap, 14th century madrigals, 16th century madrigals, 13th century Chinese folk music, gamelan music, trance music, minimalist music, etc. Just check out Category:Music genres, which is far from complete. I just think this list's purported scope is far too broad to be at all meaningful, apart from it's current issues with "truth" and actually being verified. This page has already been through AfD, I already wrote on the talk page that another AfD was sure to follow. Almost no editors followed that with actually fixing the article. I think this has been given it's chance, and should now be deleted. Mak (talk)  23:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per every reason in nomination.  Funky Monkey   (talk)  02:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Mak, who raises highly germane issues. Eusebeus 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --Blahm 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep good topic, just needs some refrences and some editing --130.184.11.129 21:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Mak, in Eusebeus's assessment of the objections of whom I concur. Joe 03:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mitaphane. Wikipedia needs more music criticism articles. Kla'quot 04:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless it can be completely stripped of original research and unsourced claims. What genres are being referred to could also do with more clarification - an article titled "List of clichés in music" is an incredibly large scope, but clearly things like "baby" refer specifically to modern pop music. Also there is a POV issue - cliche does not just mean it is common, but implies overused. So what, long songs shouldn't be last anymore? Many things listed here are characteristics of various genres, which should be mentioned on the relevant article, but are not cliches. And I do love being told how "Long songs with few lyrics" often contain few lyrics and long instrumentals, wow, thanks for that. Mdwh 01:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Very legitimate topic. I have a BS in Songwriting.  Pop music is full of cliches, from artist behavior to marketing concepts to rhymes in lyrics.  The exposure of cliches serves as a driver for originality, but also shows the value in using cliches.  The article just needs to be reworked, elaborated and substantiated.JerryFlattum 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a BM in Music Performance. Music is full of cliches, but music is also part of the history of every human culture which has ever existed. If you want a list of pop music cliches, the list should be titled accordingly. Mak (talk)  02:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Per other keeps †he Bread  02:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. All sections apart from Lyrics are still original thought, and the Lyrics section alone isn't enough to sustain the article. Anyone interested in developing this into a verified and sufficiently substantial article is welcome to move this to their userspace. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT an indiscrminate collection of information. Just because these cliches may be verifiable does not mean that synthesising them all (or in fact any of them) makes an encyclopedia article. This is simply a semi-organised collection of interesting observations, and should have no place in an encyclopedia. It is data, not knowledge. Zunaid 14:35, 17 October 2006 (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.