Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reasons why musicians fail to make money


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Reasons why musicians fail to make money

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

steaming pile of original research, essay, see WP:NOT Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A lot of it's true, but it's an essay not an encyclopaedia article. I can't see a way of making it fit, either. Peridon (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a well-written essay that will probably be copied, and turned in as homework in schools across the world, before it's taken down. Mandsford 15:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cynical, but I like it... Peridon (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as an essay. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Why.....why is this even up for debate? This should be speedied. Divebomb is not British 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, which of the 22 different reasons set out in WP:SPEEDY do you think would apply here? It's not as easy as it may seem.  Mandsford 13:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Annoyingly, nothing seems to apply. Can we use this AFD as an argument to add another criteria? Divebomb is not British 13:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but something this uncontroversial could have been taken through PROD. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "No" what? Divebomb is not British 14:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No we cannot use this AFD as an argument to add another speedy criteria. We don't come across lots and lots of essays as compared to clearly non-notable people.  There's no need to increase the scope.  Something like this which we occasionally come across can be put through PROD. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep. This article is inspirational and very informative. As a five-year veteran of the local-band scene I can tell you how many times me and my mates sat well into the night having longwinded discursive philosophical discussions about why we were not making any money, had no girlfriends, and were still living with our parents at 25. Well, now the answer my friends is upon us and we all have this article to thank. This piece, essay, article, whatever it is has redoubled our efforts to "make it" and finally reach fame, fortune, and get the "hot chicks" that all rockers should get. And we have no-one else but the author of this article to thank. His efforts should be lauded, not deleted and scorned. As far as we are concerned, this article and its author stand for everything that is right and just about the American Way. Hats off! Sincerely, Rocco Lampone 75 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC), lead guitarist for "Deep Blue," Bayonne, NJ.
 * Good luck on your career. Now's the time to print a copy and frame it, because it probably won't be here much longer.  Mandsford 16:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

*Keep. Significant and noteworthy subject of immediate pressing interest. Great potential for exansion. Is sourced as well. Sourced reliably at that. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. This article can stand on its own currently but will be awesome once it is improved. The topic remains credible however. Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC) *Keep. Wikipedia needs more, not less, articles like this. Is encyclopedic, and can be improved along the lines of explaining the "economics of the music industry" et cetera. The comment two above makes the point for keeping and expanding this fine article. Sepulveda Junction (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC) — Sepulveda Junction (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Is this a joke? (I imagine the guy above me is the same person who tagged the article for rescue.) Divebomb is not British 17:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete multiple problems - No sources (the two blog posts are neither reliable or assert notability), it reads like an essay - all in all a very clear example of What Wikipedia is not. ·Maunus· ƛ · 23:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Interesting and informative, but written as an essay based on original research, not as an enyclopedc article. Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: WP:OR essay, almost entirely lacking in sourcing (and what sources are cited aren't exactly scholarly), and lacking encyclopaedic style and topic. An article on the 'Economics of the music industry' (or similar), citing solid economics and industry analysis, would probably be a good article -- this ain't it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - So, terribly NOT encyclopedic. NotARealWord (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge The topic is obviously notable as the music business is of great interest to many millions of people. For a selection of sources discussing this topic, please see
 * Music Is Your Business
 * Popular music and the state in the UK
 * The Cambridge companion to pop and rock
 * Paying the piper: a study of musicians and the music business

An obvious merge target is musician. That's currently a piece of junk and so could use a little stimulation. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC) ::Follow up Ths is a rally good idea!!!! Wow, I see no reason man why there should not be like articles like that on wikipedia, its like amazing and how man we can as a people, through collaborative efforts and joy explain things that are AND as they aren't man. As long as we have consensus and the stuff is sourced man I see no limit to what we can accomplish and write and do. You are onto something man. Is not the "sum of human knowledge" also the knowledge of why things are not as they are? Happy Holidays, man. Sepulveda Junction (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Delete," say all my wiki-instincts. But why?  Firstly the tone is "how-to," that is addressing people directly and giving them advice. That could be fixed.  However a deeper problem is that an encyclopedia is supposed to be for facts about things that are, not reasons why things are not.  I don't think we should have articles on "Reasons why Al Gore is not president," or "Reasons why there are so few German restaurants in the United States," or "Reasons why other animal species besides humans don't use fire," and on and on. A section in Musician on factors leading to success sounds like a good idea.[User:Kitfoxxe|Kitfoxxe]] (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "Is not the "sum of human knowledge" also the knowledge of why things are not as they are?" - but things are as they are. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Take our specific topic as an example. Isn't the situation of the majority of musicians failing to make money a thing that is. And this article explains why that is. Sepulveda Junction (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Things not as they are" represents falsehood, so can't be part of the set of "things as they are", which represents truth - nothing is ever not as it is. The majority of musicians not making money is part of "things as they are", not part of "things not as they are". An assertion that the majority of musicians do make money would be part of the set of "things not as they are" - ie falsehoods. The article describes things as they are, not not as they are. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection whatsoever to the fact that there are many more non-finacially successful musicians than otherwise being reported in musician. I also don't have a problem with a section there telling some of the factors for musical success as suggested by reliable sources on the subject. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Rocco Lampone 75, User:Tomas Gilbfarb, and User:Sepulveda Junction have all been indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of banned user. –MuZemike 18:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Essay, original research, personal POV. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   confess 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obviously. Original research essay, non-encyclopedic topic. Snotty Wong  confess 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, probably. The basic premise of this article is flawed:
 * "Ninety-nine percent of musicians fail to make money"
 * The inclusion criteria for these musicians is vague - buskers? People who can fart in tune? Bono?
 * The definition of 'making money' is vague - enough for the next drink? Enough to live on? Enough to have a career as second tuba in the Halle orchestra? Enough to buy a private island staffed with semi-naked masseurs/euses?
 * Term is an unlikely search target. The current content is an essay, and inherently POV. pablo 18:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to Why original research fails to make good articles. Oh, wait, no. Delete. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 27 November 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.