Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinoy pop


 * 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   keep. 67.33.105.219's comment has been discounted because no sources is not a reason to delete. With that discounted, the consensus here is to keep. ( X! ·  talk )  · @223  · 04:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Pinoy pop

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Strong Delete. There is no such thing as "Pinoy pop" and even if there is, it is not in the form written in the article. The term for popular music in the Philippines is OPM (Original Pilipino Music). The user who created the article is obviously disgruntled by the music scene in the Philippines and is trying to discredit its artist. I suggest the article is deleted and is only recreated when necessary (preferably when relevant sources appear). 23prootie (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or maybe redirect to Pinoy rock. I don't know enough how this differs from Pinoy rock, but per WP:BEFORE it does not appear that the nominator did any due dilligence before nominating this term for deletion.  Relevent google news search seems to indicate the term comes up often enough in reliable sources to indicate it is a valid title for a music genre.  See this reference which uses the term in the title of a news article, and here's another one and here's another one.  All of these seem to use the term as a generic term for a genere of Filipino music.  Based on this, it appears that, while the article itself is poorly written, it is clearly a distinct and notable genre, and deletion is not cleanup.  NPOV and referencing problems noted by the OP can be handled by simple cleanup, as the subject itself seems to be notable enough to warrant an article.  -- Jayron  32  05:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Those are not-so-reliable sources as they do not define what the genre is.--23prootie (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair ehttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pngnough. But could we not just redirect the article to a more accepted title for this genre?  If its merely an alternate name for a real genre, as you claim, then shouldn't you have started a merge discussion instead of a deletion one?  It would seem to me that the term is used often enough that it may come up in a search term or as a link in another Wikipedia article; could we not just merge the content OR redirect the title to the proper genre name?  -- Jayron  32  02:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DeleteThe importance of the article only matters if it has sources,articles can only stay if they have sources.67.33.105.219 (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, where is that any part of Wikipedia policy? Articles are not deleted because they do not currently have sources.  Never have been!  Articles may be deleted because the subject of the article is not notable, but that is not the same as not having sources.  Adding sources is a trivial matter if they exist, and there is no need to delete an article if sources do exist, even if they are not part of the article.  -- Jayron  32  02:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a notable topic. There's an argument to be made that it should be renamed Original Pilipino Music, but that can be worked out on the talk page. It needs some clean up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The is already an OPM article so this is unnecessary. I guess a merge to that article is better.--23prootie (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not an article on OPM, it's a section of the Music of the Philippines article. Pop music of the Philipines, whatever title it should be under, is notable neough for its own article. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is better to delete this article and write a new one. This one is too offensive to be kept.--23prootie (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. I think the deletion of this article is premature. But I think there is an alternative.--23prootie (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take out anything that's incorrect and clarify it to your heart's content. If someone objects we can discuss on the article talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2009 (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.