Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Battle of Britpop


 * 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. Marketing ploy or not this was reported and is therefore notable. Whether to redirect/merge should be subject to usual editing process and does not require a recommendation from AFD Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of Britpop

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

Unsourced and a lot of original research. Notability in question. This could easily go in the article content of the relevant bands. It also seems like an unnecessary branch off the Britpop article. — Realist  2  22:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This incident was reported throughout the week on the BBC's flagship news show and is therefore an event in its own right. It concerns the two most influential bands of the decade in British music and citations could be found for every single fact in the article. It is just unsourced, not unnecessary. --Tefalstar (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just added citations from the BBC, Gigwise and the Gaurdian, relating to the event, quotes by Noel Gallagher and the eventual outcome. --Tefalstar (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And why cant this just be a part of the Britpop article, it incorporates most of the same ideals and is completely unnecessary as a stand alone article. — Realist  2  22:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Britpop relates to over a decade of music by dozens of bands. The Battle of Britpop relates to a very specific event which is very famous amongst fans of the genre. With the new citations irrefutibly demonstrating notability, it meets all the criteria for a stand alone article. Alluding to the event and providing links from the Britpop page is just commonsense. However, there is no reason to get rid of an article about a notable event which includes sources. --Tefalstar (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A very specific event that could just as easily fit in the Britpop article or the article of the relevant bands no doubt. — Realist  2  00:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * By that logic the D-Day landings should just be in the World War II article. And George W. Bush should just be in the USA article. Articles like Britpop and Oasis are where we bring together all the threads, not include every single bit of information. If people want to follow the link from the Britpop article then they can read exactly what happened, see exact record sale figures and follow the various reference links. There is nothing at all wrong with this system of interconnecting articles now it has citations. --Tefalstar (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do any of these sources actually say "The Battle of Britpop", (I haven't had time to read them all indepth as it's late) or is this a make believe title? — Realist  2  00:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The later BBC articles refer to it as a "chart battle", but the orignal 1995 news reports and the NME magazine both went with the phrase "Battle of Britpop". I can probably find citations for those but it would be murder. The Gaurdian use it more, for example in this article the headline references the 1995 "Battle of Britpop" - --Tefalstar (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Redirect. This was basically a marketing ploy. Singles compete against each other every week in the charts. This was not much more notable other than the fact that the media decided to jump on it. It would warrant a mention in the Blur and Oasis pages perhaps (if either page's editors warrant it to be important enough), but it certainly doesn't deserve an article to itself. Apart from anything else, how do you title such an article? To my memory it was never specifically reported as "The Battle of Britpop". It could just as easily be called "Blur V Oasis" or "Two singes released in 1995 that competed against each other" or any other name you can dream up. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept that notability has been clearly demonstrated and you don't get to decide what the media is right and wrong about. It was an event followed by the flagship news shows of the country, between the two most significant cultural acts of the era. The term "Battle of Brit-pop" is unofficial yes, like most culutral titles, but see the link to the Gaurdian online above for journalistic usage. Also see here for the BBC flagship news show describing the event as "the biggest chart war in 30 years". --Tefalstar (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Strong redirect to Britpop. It was a big story at the time, but was only WP:Oneevent, and per WP:Notnews, it doesn't need its own article. It was all a marketing ploy: That newspapers at the time fell for it does not mean an encylopedia should be so non-discerning. the britpop article will have to cover this in the same detail as this stub to be comprehensive, so keeping it would be redundant. In fact the Britpop article already has mopre coverage than this one! so no merge needed. Redirect means anyone interesed in it will find all the information given here anyway.Yobmod (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2008 (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.