Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popsical


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Popsical

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Neologism, article has been a stub for 3 years. Ridernyc (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has sources indicating notability of music genre.-- Pink Bull  14:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * really the sources describe it's development and history or are they just throwing around a poorly defined neologism? Ridernyc (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also notice how every article uses the term "popsical" in quotes, almost always a sure sign of a neologism. Ridernyc (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Granted it can be defined as a neologism, but WP:NEO doesn't preclude articles on neologisms if they are notable. This one appears to be notable. One of the sources used for the article is a full profile on the term. -- Pink Bull  16:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is it is a poorly defined neologism, one source describes it as a former popular music performer playing classical music, another describes it as classical music with pop music elements. Forget poorly defined there actually is no definition it's just a word made up as a joke. Ridernyc (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - The sources in the article amount to "it exists", but do not constitute "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" as required by the general notability guidelines. Good faith Google searches do not return additional sources (except as a misspelling of "popsicle"). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment - I'll assume in good faith that the St Louis Post-Dispatch story, which is behind a paywall, is an independent, reliable source, and that Pink Bull has actually read the article and not just a summary on Google. Even assuming that, it's the only such source.  The requirement at the general notability guidelines is sources, plural. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't leave as a redlink — I have no opinion on keeping or deleting, but consensus goes for deletion, it should be recreated as a redirect to Popsicle per Dust's observation. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect as above. Even if it exists, there doesn't seem to be much of anything to say about it within an encyclopedic context. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This gives me the impression that all it is is a minimally-used, fan-made term to describe some music. There are only three artists listed as "popsical". This sort of coverage is worse than mere stubness. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 02:37, 17 March 2010 (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.