Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music community


 * 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 trainwreck. Between the !vote changes and !changes caused by the mid-discussion rewrite, and the rambling discussion afterwards, I see no way to reliably determine whether there's a consensus to do, well, anything. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Music community

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See talk page discussion (".music applicant caught using bogus Wikipedia page") and this article. Article has "POV" tag and multiple editors doubt the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Comment I agree that it does seem a bit essay-like for wikipedia as it is, but seems to have some relevance to the sociology of music. I don't think it's unreasonable to have an article examining music socially, but it's not easy to define. There is community organization in music, and how musicians interact and relate to each other is notable. I'm sure you could find further scholarly studies examining how the music business functions in that way. The problem with this though is that I think there's a lack of sources which refer to "music community" as an actual term. Rather than delete I would suggest moving it to a more suitable title which would open more scope for use of reliable sources and reword what is written to become more encyclopedic and coherent. Perhaps Sociomusicology would be the best place to centre such an article or perhaps Commercialism of music and this should be redirected to that and that article considerably improved? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whatever its other problems, this is what novel synthesis actually looks like. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Struck following WP:HEY attempt; see below. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete See article talk page - the topic as defined is not notable per se.  And none of it would seem salvageable AFAICT at this point.  Collect (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 01:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, see also my comments at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard: WP:OR while entirely based on primary sources (thesises and the like), and putting the content of these primary sources together in an "original" fashion. The only two secondary sources in the article don't use the expression "music community", not even once. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but do you not think Commercialism of music would be a very valid encyclopedic subject and this would be best written in a broader article there without it seeming OR? Sociomusicology is a very poorly documented subject on here and does need development. In fact I'd argue there should be a subtopic focus on it at Template:Sociomusicology with a series of articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Commercialism of music is a valid encyclopedia topic is of no relevance to this AfD discussion (it certainly isn't a synonym of "Music community"). While for neither Notability (music) yields criteria for admission, WP:GNG seems the way to go: establish sufficient secondary reliable sources devoted to the topic, and start from there. For the current music community article that was a failure. Since the available sources used in the music community article (primary & secondary) rather seem to indicate that "music community" can be used in the context of (music) fan community and/or (subgroups related to) what is defined as the music scene, there's apparently no fix link between uses of the expression "music community" and "commercial" endeavours (as our questionable article on "music community" seems to contend), which apparently can only be established based on what (in Wikipedia context) is WP:OR. Unless you can show secondary sources... but apparently no, otherwise you'd have used them in the article that is up for deletion now.
 * Re. improving and/or expanding Sociomusicology: of course (but not based on WP:OR). Re. Template:Sociomusicology: way too early to start about that, I can't see that happening before the Sociomusicology article has developed in something more substantial, e.g. in WP:Summary style, with appropriate spin-offs. And again, please stay away from WP:OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And "commercialism of" music doesn't logically parse. We already have that article anyway, at Music industry, though in theory an article could be written about the commercialization/-isation of music as a WP:SUMMARY split-off from it. Which still has little to do with some nebulous concept of a "music community".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The present article could use improvement, but what counts is potential. A quick search in Google Books shows many sources, preview available, that discuss the concept directly and in detail. Three variants are described:
 * Educational: A group of students, teachers and parents involved in music, typically teacher led, e.g. ,
 * Sociological: A group of musicians and their followers in a community, usually informal, e.g., , I assume that Sociomusicology is the study of such groups.
 * Commercial: An online space where musicians and fans communicate, e.g. ,
 * Fragments from a JSTOR search include: "This annual infusion of prospective music makers into our schools and our society ensures increasing potential for the music community", "cultivation of a sustainable music community in his southern Maine locality", "sexist attitudes from the eastern music community", "Home on the page: a virtual place of music community", "server mediated peer-to-peer file sharing system like the Napster Music Community...", "Definitions of a music community differ, but one of the most all-encompassing has been suggested by Micheal O Suilleabhain: a music community is a group of interested participants who agree on the form and content of the music and its social contexts.28"


 * The concepts are somewhat abstract, but it is a valid topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is an argument for a definition in Wiktionary - but can you find a cohesive definition or ambit for an article? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See the sources noted above, which are just a small sample. A great deal has been written about music communities, enough to support an extensive article. A search before creating this AfD would have showed that. Possibly there could also be an entry in Wiktionary – I suppose that is true of many topics. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Aymatth2, the problem with your analysis is that it comprises hundreds if not thousands of different "music communities", which (A) would be impossible to cover in one article and (B) already have their own dedicated articles or article sections (usually devoid of the redundant word "community"). This article, which purports to be about "Music community" per se, is unnecessary even as a Wiktionary term, because it goes without saying that any "X community" is a/the community of people interested in or involved in "X". This is a pointless exercise in a random accumulation of opinions and facts. If you want to create or expand an article on the Sociology of Music, or Music Education, or some such, feel free, but that is not what this article is or could conceivably be within Wikipedia's parameters. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the sources demonstrated by Aymatth. At worst case scenario a merge into Commercialism of music and revamp there.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But the sources Aymatth found show that the term is consistently used to mean a particular music community in a particular context, and that there is no single music community; further, they show that the very conceptualization of what is meant by a music community differs from usage to use, so even "music communities" isn't a plausible WP topic. There's no clear definition. We wouldn't even be able to create a sensible "List of music communities" for lack of clear inclusion criteria.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment on version at the time of nomination: The article starts off coy about whether it's talking about "music community" as a common noun, or the music community, but by paragraph 3 we arrive at the definite article and read "The music community shares a cohesive and interconnected structure of artistic expression" -- uh? western classical tradition, western popular, Indian music, Chinese music, various tribal music traditions, ..., cohesive? Well sorry, but bollocks. Better write about garage bands, which at least can usually be shown to exist. ( I'm not seriously suggesting doing that. ) This is self-evident WP:SYN. The special pleading to the effect of ooh but surely with a change of title it could form the basis of something are just a smoke screen for the fact that this text could hardly form the basis for anything. --Stfg (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC) (Refactored --Stfg (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Delete My first impression on reading this "article" was that of an undergraduate essay. I agree with Stfg as to why it should be deleted. Syek88 (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. A bunch of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Not even an WP:ESSAY, just a compilation of randomness. Not one single viewable reference even mentions the term. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC); edited 07:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. The "delete" arguments above are all based on the status of the article at present. It is essay-like, but that is irrelevant: articles can be improved. The correct question is whether the subject is notable. A quick search shows plenty of sources that discuss in depth the different types of music community. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see multiple issues in that approach:
 * "status of the article at present", if that status is "nothing salvageable" (as contended in the discussion above, and to which I agree), the preferable approach is to delete the article and start from scratch, so as to have no edit history with "contributors" who didn't contribute anything to a viable version of the article – also in this particular case, with the article being used to back up a commercial claim on content that has been called "bogus" in external sources: if not deleted, the edit history would still make possible to visualise the entirely rejected content via the Wikipedia website, which I'd deplore: this is not the standard of quality we're aiming at;
 * "whether the subject is notable", seems like many trivial mentionings in all sources I've seen thus far (those currently in the article & the additional ones mentioned above), like it wouldn't be too difficult to find a lot of sources on many "qualifier + substantive" combinations, take e.g. brown horse, but nothing convincing this would definitely pass WP:GNG.
 * "plenty of sources that discuss in depth the different types of music community" – if there are sufficient WP:GNG-compliant sources it wouldn't be too difficult to have an article on that. Whoever has the time can write it then (what are you waiting for?). In the mean while however, we shouldn't have an article with not a single salvageable sentence, and that over-all is rather a disgrace & liability than an asset for the encyclopedia: rather nothing on the topic than this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The topic is notable and may be large enough that there could be several sub-articles. A school-based music community is a subject of interest to educationalists. The first source cited above is all about fostering such a community. Several other sources discuss these educational music communities in detail. The fourth source is a rather heavy sociological discussion of music communities within broader societies. Again, there are various discussions that cover this aspect of Sociomusicology. The online variety is a distinct type of music community. This site, the first search result I get for the term, indicates that "music community" is a specialized class of web site, with its own supporting software products. Again, there are plenty of sources.


 * When a topic is clearly notable but the article is poor, it is not usually deleted but may be reduced to a stub. We are not concerned about page history unless it includes attacks or copyright violations. A stub is more likely to expanded than a deleted article to be recreated. A stub may contain no more than a basic definition: A music community has been broadly defined as "a group of interested participants who agree on the form and content of the music and its social contexts", citing This source, p 122. It could then be expanded by interested editors. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not about the article being "poor", it is about the nothing being salvageable from the whole article. If you have viable content for a stub on the topic (...more than a dictionary definition of course), fine, propose it, what's keeping you? That being said, better to delete the edit history regarding the "non-salvageable" content, nobody needs to be reminded of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: This is a hodge-podge of unrelated source material that's been WP:ORed into a semi-plausible topic that is basically an exercise in really vague fandom. It's like having an article on "the writing community" or "the car-driving community". There is no community, even in the loosest sense. There are various music scenes, and genres with subcultures enmeshed with them, and a music industry, but this does not magically coalesce into a monolithic "music community". Virtually none of the (all-primary) sources that use this term do so in sense anywhere near this loose, but all say or clearly mean something more specific, e.g. the Eastern US music scene, or the scene related to a particular genre, or the music industry, or sociomusicology, or music education, or whatever. Lumping them all together is an exercise in the combined fallacies of equivocation and false equivalence.  Another way of looking at it is that this is a multi-pronged WP:COATRACK.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an essay, not a Wikipedia article. Searching "music community" in Google turns up the phrase with many different qualifying adjectives - "country music community", "new music community", "Instagram music community", etc.  Claiming that there is one "music community" seems to be original research. John Nagle (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Massive WP:OR. Specific and well-defined communities of musicians, when notable, should be covered in Wikipedia, but this is not appropriate. It's too broad and vague. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reset In response to the above discussion, which is almost entirely about the text, I have rewritten the article from scratch. Perhaps we can quit commenting about the text, which I am sure will be improved as more knowledgeable editors contribute, and focus this discussion on the question of notability. The notability of the subject should be the primary concern in any deletion debate. I obviously consider that this is a broad and deep subject, with the present effort just scratching the surface. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment  The "reset" basically says that a music community is a community of people who are interested in music. Tautology aside, what would be needed is some cite or group of cites using the term with reference to specific music communities,, and doing so in a reasonably consistent manner.  This hurdle has not yet been overcome.   Would the author also support "baseball community", "cheesecake community" etc. as there are definitely groups of people with "shared interest" in a near infinity of topics?    We do have Barbershop music with information about the groups involved in that specific sphere of music, etc. - but I remain unsure that making an article about all of music is of unquestioned separate notability. Collect (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reviewers of the previous version of the article said there were many specific music communities, but nothing had been written about the concept of music communities in general. The rewrite gives just a few examples of specific communities and focuses almost entirely on what scholarly sources have written about music communities in general, a more abstract concept but more appropriate to the title. Perhaps another article could list specific ones. It could turn into a huge list. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I count a total of two believers in the topic being notable for Wikipedia purposes. I fear that is not enough for a closer to treat this as a "keep" at this point in time.  Perhaps you might wait for a few months and try an entirely different approach to an article about a cohesive definition of this area? Collect (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: This topic is not going to pass muster no matter how it is worded. Any way one words it, it is just going to be a simplistic non-notable tautology and a random accumulation of randomly selected opinions and/or non-noteworthy "observations", and thus a random WP:OR WP:ESSAY. See my reasoning already posted three days ago. Not an encyclopedic topic, any way one cuts it. Softlavender (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC); edited 06:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Resetting" an AfD is not usually an option. (It's not even clear that the new version is an improvement. It promotes "Old Boy Records", inflating their importance. I will stand by my "Delete" vote.) John Nagle (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I continue to stand by my "Delete" vote too. We don't need to hang on to the edit history for the former failed version for one, secondly I agree with my colleagues that Aymatth2's new version is still unconvincing, too much of a "brown horse" kind of article (or any of the other comparisons made above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment reaffirming my earlier delete !vote: I'm with the above comments on this. The new version is as much a potential coatrack as it was before. The concept hasn't been demonstrated notable. Because of the "how now brown cow" elocution exeercise, it would be easy to find many sources using the phrase "brown cow". That wouldn't justify the idea of an article about brown cows. (The present brown cow is a disambiguation page.) Likewise, here we're dealing with nothing more than an ordinary prefixing of a noun with a qualifier, not with a standard term. The present version hasn't been demonstrated "music community" to be a distinguished concept any more than the previous version did. And I strongly object to the attempt to kick previous comments into touch by unilaterally declaring a "reset". We aren't allowed to !vote twice, so what do we say down here? This is pulling the rug out from under our feet. My delete stands. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be a " distinguished concept". The argument against this (aside from moral panic that it might be a "bogus" article), seems to be that because it's a broad term or subject to different interpretations it can't possibly be notable. Aymatth has demonstrated significant discussion of it in credible sources. It is not our job to try to invent terms with OR. The article doesn't do that as it is currently, it reports what has loosely been written about it in reliable sources, and might I say, does so in a fashion much better than many general articles on music we have. It's like saying we can't have a general article on musical instrument because they can differ wildly around the world and what a musical instrument is may mean something different depending on the person. The online music community discussion in particular demonstrates why it's notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The comments on the earlier version were all addressed at the quality of the writing, and said nothing about notability. The complete rewrite tries to solve the "essay-like" concern. The sources cited by the new version discuss the subject of music communities directly and in depth, clearly demonstrating notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep on saying that, and it's false. Comments about WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:COATRACK and about the article (in its original version) failing to be clear about what the subject of the article is, are all about notability, NOT about quality of writing. --Stfg (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if an article does not demonstrate notability, what counts is whether the subject itself is notable, which can be determined by a search for sources. That apparently was not done before the previous version of the article was nominated, and was not done by any of the reviewers. I saw no discussion on whether there were sources that discussed the subject in depth, only discussion about the text of the prior version. The new version cites various sources that do indeed discuss the subject in depth, which would have showed up on the most cursory check for notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I look at the issue in the following way, similar to the "brown cow" example given above. If I were to write an article about a Mozart symphony, I would draw the material in the article from publications, written by musicologists, that are about the symphony. The Wikipedia article then gives the reader the complete picture of the symphony. That is not what has been done here.  The writer of the amended article has drawn from an eclectic pot pourri of obscure literature, the only common feature of which seems to be that each mentions, somewhere, the concept of a "music community".  The result is that the article is no less of an undergraduate essay than the first version. It is a collection of disparate information about music communities, the emphasis on different aspects of which depends entirely on what the individual Wikipedia author was able to find, and where. It is not an holistic examination of a well-developed concept that the article on the Mozart symphony would be. I am therefore also minded to continue to say "delete". Syek88 (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"The concept of music communities is well-developed in ethnomusicology. A large part of this discipline consists of studies of groups of people who frequently exchange and communicate musical material." -sourced to a reliable author. How is that not notable?? " an eclectic pot pourri of obscure literature," -welcome to wikipedia, most articles to really be comprehensive are an eclectic range of sources. You're basically arguing that we can't have an article on a broad topic subject to different interpretations because not everybody agrees on the exact meaning of it. It is our job as a encyclopedia to collect what has been written about topics, and this has been demonstrated to be a well-developed concept in ethnomusicology anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the sources are ethnographers or ethnomusicologists. The subject is a common one in these disciplines, if somewhat controversial, particularly with the cyber ethnographists. The article presents an outline, including conflicting opinions. Sadly, much of the literature the academics produce would be considered "obscure" by the general public. But Wikipedia has room for articles on any topic that has been discussed in depth by several reliable independent sources, as is the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It makes no difference to me if the article is deleted or not, but the material used here is encyclopedic in some way, shape or form. I suppose people think Aymatth was paid $5000 to write an article about musical community too LOL. Of course this is less encyclopedic than the content written by the nominator "The paper's Wm. Steven Humphrey wrote, "These nudie cuties were born to entertain, and prove it by leaping from stage to tabletop, hanging naked upside down (by the tops of their FEET!!), and if you're extremely lucky, gingerly lifting a dollar bill off your forehead with their ass cheeks. Now that's talent!" (which is a GA article!!) ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And that is relevant to the current question just how? It's other stuff, and you're merely trying to poison the well. You didn't bother to link it, but it must be this. Take it to AFD if you want. Good luck with that. --Stfg (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very relevant, because it demonstrates the double standards which exist on here. The Three Sisters Tavern is notable but never in any way, shape or form is that quote encyclopedic or of encyclopedic value here. If anything the gender gap lot and Jimbo would accuse the writer of misogyny and offense to transsexuals by treating men as women and calling them "nudie cuties" and making them seem like sexual objects. It just amuses me that somebody could think that really encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion but not scholarly commentary on musical community.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Based on the citation at the start of this AfD page, I believe this article was created by and solely for the benefit of commercial entities which is not an accurate depiction of "music communities. I'm not against having an article about "music communities" but I think it's doomed to fail unless it narrowed down to very specific communities.- kosboot (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So you think I'm a commercial entity then? Do you have any idea how many hours of my free time I've devoted to this project without pay in ten years ?♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Userfy or ... something. I do appreciate the effort to WP:HEY this, and for what it's worth, I think the current version is closer on the path to being an article that satisfies inclusion guidelines. But I think the WP:SYN problem is still significant. Although there are points in the article where the contrasts between definitions are highlighted, on the whole, this article treats the title term as though there was some commonality in uses of the term. To make the point more clear, this article dances around the topic of who constitutes the membership of a music community. Does it include the fans? Not according to the NCME source. Does it include the original artists? Not according to Froehlich. Likewise, the article doesn't (and can't) really address what a music community does. For Waldron, it's a community of practice, something akin to a collaborative trade guild (J. Burns uses the term in a roughly analogous sense despite a vastly different culture). Froehlich imagines it as purely pedagogical. Denzin's subculture/scene/community structure is all about the fans themselves, but McCarthy considers that insufficient. I know that Nettl calls the idea "well-defined" in ethnomusicology. And he's an expert in that field, so I'm in no place to argue with him. And maybe that's the way forward for this article: discussing the term's application in different fields and contexts, while being staunchly careful not to syncretize unlike meanings. I don't know. But I'm not comfortable supporting what's here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As an aside, Nicholsen and Wolf are both doctoral dissertations and should be cited as such; I'll leave to future debates whether such material should be deemed a reliable source. On the other hands, I can happily note that Rikandi is a reliable source, and is not self-published, despite the incorrect citation entry provided. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * the first sensible input from anybody here aside from Aymatth since this has been started! If we don't like the term "Musical community" this content clearly has some value somewhere on here. But basically this is like saying "McDonalds is adamant that the Big Mac exists because wikipedia has an article on it" and then deleting the Big Mac article, ignoring the content written about it because a company happened to cite it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm quite attracted to 's suggestion, but I think this article should be deleted. Not salted, just deleted, and this for reasons given by many editors above. I would have no objection to copy-pasting their version into their user space, with the intention of recreating it after deletion of the current version. Even with the same title, which doesn't seem to me to be the main bone of contention. But I think the retention of the earlier version visible to anyone who knows to look at the article history would be an invitation to drama that we don't need. --Stfg (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am a bit slow sometimes... So this whole debate is nothing to do with whether the topic is notable, as it clearly is, but is all about whether the previous version was discussed in some conspiracy theory blog. That is why nobody is addressing the reliable independent sources question, and that is why there is such concern about deleting prior versions of the article. To the comments by User:Squeamish Ossifrage, yes, there are different views about scope, purpose etc, of the various types of music community, and the article tries to draw that out. Of course it could use improvement. The whole idea of Wikipedia is that articles steadily improve as knowledgeable editors contribute. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, lack of notability is NOT the only criterion for deletion. See WP:DEL-REASON, which is part of the deletion policy. Arguments presented here for deletion are well within that policy. It would be better to respect them than to try to pronounce them out of court. --Stfg (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not buy that. The topic is discussed in depth by reliable independent sources. The article reports what those sources say without any original research. There is no copyright violation, vandalism or spam. None of the reasons for deletion apply. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Novel synthesis is considered a form of original research and is (and has been) my primary objection to this article's content. When substantial, it is most assuredly a valid grounds for deletion. As an example: The second paragraph in the general section is dedicated to the idea that "music community" is a well-defined concept in ethnomusicology. Nettl introduces that assertion, and that's fine (he's an expert, he gets to). The material that follows is presented as though it supports that claim; it does not. Brinner is also an ethnomusicology source, but his writing about the way that music elements change probably requires explicit attribution in the text because it doesn't appear to be a universally held stance (it certainly isn't directly addressed by Nettl). Meanwhile, between the two, Colwell and Richardson is not about ethnomusicology at all; this source is a discussion of the pedagogical formulation of a "music community". But that's not what readers would assume. That goes to the essence of novel synthesis; combining different uses of the term to create a syncretized whole unsupported by the individual sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would never have spotted any problem there. Please feel free to rearrange the sentences if their present sequence gives a misleading impression. Deletion seems a very drastic approach if the problems are all so subtle and easily fixed. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk to avoid teal deer-ing this page more than it already is. Short version: fixing novel synthesis isn't that easy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful comments at User talk:Aymatth2. I think each statement accurately reflects what the cited source says. Obviously, they do not all agree. Our audience is the general reader, so I arranged the material in the way that seemed natural: General concepts – different types of community – internet stuff. I am not sure it would be better organized around the ways that different academic disciplines treat the subject, although perhaps the article could do a better job of clarifying the different viewpoints. This is the sort of discussion that belongs on the article talk page though, as we work it up to GA status... Aymatth2 (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Blow it up and start over: I've refactored my delete vote on the previous version to be just a comment. The version by is an improvement, not successfully avoiding synthesis yet, but a step forward. If Aymatth2 were to develop a version along the lines suggested by  in the talk page post mentioned in his comment just above here, it could become an excellent article. The current article and especially it's history need to go, imho, but Squeamish's suggestion is a good way forward. --Stfg (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The first reasonable thing you've said all day.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If there is consensus that the article would be o.k. with the content rearranged under the titles "Introduction", "Ethnomusicology", "Pedagogy", "Sociomusicology" and "Cyber ethnography", maybe a bit more stuff added, I can do that tomorrow. I do not particularly like it, because most readers would not know what those big words mean, but if that is what it takes to resolve this dispute, no problem. The separate idea that removing page history would somehow defuse the ridicule of the article at the Domain Incite blog, seems plain silly to me. You can't change history. It is highlighted on Wikipedia Signpost. I have asked user:DGG if he would care to comment on that. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to insist that the article should be just like that. I only meant that if you and can agree on some way to address his concerns about novel synthesis, then my misgivings will evaporate. --Stfg (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not consider it synthesis; it is properly sourced by an expert editor whom I do not propose to second-guess in such matters, and whose good faith I would not conceivably challenge. That an outside organization may have made  use of it  for its own purposes is one of the inevitable consequence of our CC license. We cannot prevent such use, and we should hold fast to our role in creating an encycopedia, not in trying to construct an encyclopedia that is no neutered as to be incapable of misuse. Personally, I think online music community is also an acceptable topic, and need not be integrated here. If it's going to be rewritten, I urge Dr.B to take the lead in rewriting it.
 * As for the issue Aymath raises, we could do this if the earlier material was really considered improper--we often do it for e situations like copyvio. But I think it absurd here--there is nothing wrong with the  article as it stands.  DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Spinoff: Online music community


 * Online music community – Don't appreciate (especially as this is the talk page content). Has the same problems. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's called attribution as a starting point. It's a notable enough topic in its own right too. Sociomusicology is poorly covered on here, and there is a lot of scholarly material which can be gleaned from the subject.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as content fork. Trout as Gaming the system --Stfg (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You really need to Assume good faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. --Stfg (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Considered to post a Db-a10 on top, but then it can still be a redirect to the Music community page for the time being. Removed the unnecessary "origin" history from its talk page, by making that a redirect (to the other page's talk page)
 * Note that if the redirect is undone Db-web would probably work for the spin-off. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong, Db-a10 doesn't apply because I have begun adding content to it which isn't in the Music community article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have indented the above discussion, which I think is closed now Online music community redirects to this article. Further comments on this article can be added below. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is a separate topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Fine to keep it as a section, but I think Aymatth2 is right that it doesn't need further discussion as long as it's a redirect. I've hatted the gory details. --Stfg (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we will need a separate discussion, because if the article is kept I intend to revert the redirect. If the article is not kept, that part should be re-started. The suggestion above about Dr.B's lack of good faith is one of the more absurd things I've heard here recently .  DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That being said, this version of the article has serious problems: it is an amalgam of case study reports and examples, with some extrapolations not borne out by the sources, without any attempt to present a general approach to what should be the article's subject, and with similar WP:OR issues as its predecessor – on the whole far from what acceptably can be a stub on the topic. So, I oppose resurrecting it, and suggest a similar incubation (and search for more general sources) as has been proposed for the general article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Both articles will always suffer the same problems -- both will inevitably be nothing more than randomly cherry-picked WP:OR WP:SYNTH, and will resemble nothing more than random uncurated essays, no matter what one tries to do with them. Let these things be homework assignments, but please keep them off the encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Was inclined to take the same approach after three failed attempts, but think the recommendations posted by Squeamish Ossifrage on Aymatth2's talk page provide a viable path forward. After all, we've had topics with similar difficulties, I'm thinking for instance about the epic struggles to get something reasonable on the topic of classical music, for *exactly* the same reasons (vague concept, difficult to find sources that give a general description of the topic). It's not because it is a topic for which it is more difficult to give a clean description supported by sources, than say for a random asteroid, that Wikipedia should avoid to have an article on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Obviously (Western) classical music is a discrete topic, and one that must, like any major (and most-important) genre of music, be covered by an encyclopedia. Where as these tautological and non-notable subjects subject only to random WP:OR are an anathema to an encyclopedia, in my view. These sorts of articles are exactly the reason that homework assignments are so awful on Wikipedia, and in this case, they weren't even homework assignments. Anyway, these conversations are getting a bit distracting and repetitive, so I've said my peace. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Getting it past WP:GNG is an added concern, true. Would avoid prejudice in either direction about that though, while, true, none of the proposed versions have proven to pass it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Snotty.♦ Dr. Blofeld  05:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe rather try to get a grip on the issues that have been raised than replying with "snotty" remarks, eh? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it would help if my work wasn't referred to as a "homework assignment". The classical music project in general does display a snotty attitude on wikipedia, a reason why myself or Ser Amantio di Nicalao etc don't want to be a part in it despite an interest.. You put off people by your superciliousness and arrogance.♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

More on Irish music community in the United States here.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment on AfD format - This page is getting messy and the discussion is rambling. AfD discussions are subject to WP:AFDFORMAT.  Please stay on topic and follow the format of stating your position, and then stopping. Adding off-topic comments is often considered an attempt to disrupt an AfD. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * keep. Its section "General" reasonably proves that the concept is valid and discussed in reliable sources. I disagree with the COATRACK label. There are diverse types of music communities, and trying to write about all of them is clearly not a COATRACK, because these are clearly relevant and not collection of trivia. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article has changed so much that comments made when the initial AfD was posted may want to be reconsidered. - kosboot (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2015 (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.