Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of trends in music (1990-1999)


 * 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. Sr13 00:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of trends in music (1990-1999)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

See Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_trends_in_music_%282000-present%29. This article seems to suffer the same problems. Its been tagged as unsourced since Feb - not surprising as the article lacks a single source. As it stands its total original research Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Similar to the last AfD, I think there's an encyclopedic topic here somewhere, just that this might not be it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This reaks of original research and is no more than a list interspersed with various comments --PrincessBrat 15:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - If every Wikipedia article that contained mainly original research was deleted, Wikipedia would be pretty much empty. I was just reading this article and learned some interesting stuff from it. If it contains OR, clean it up. It isn't hurting anyone Wikipedia's credibility by being here, since the majority of its articles are made up mostly of OR. Once (or if) Wikipedia reaches the stage where nearly every article is featured, and articles like this stand out, then I'll be more sympathetic to the deletion of articles like this.-- Azer Red  Si?  15:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I havent got time or patience to tidy articles like this up. Its an indiscrimiate list with comments interspered which makes in part makes it original research. Lots of artciles on this site should be deleted but until they get nominated we cant do anything about that can we. anyways who is going to search for this sort of article directly? No-one. Also this article for it to be read at all would require having links added to laods of other music pages and that would take a very long time for someone to do. --PrincessBrat 22:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:HARMLESS and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS you mean? --pgk 16:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankfully neither of the above are policy, because they don't make any sense. If something is truly harmless, then there isn't any reason to nominate it for deletion except to be a WP:DICK by destroying others hard work. And, yes I agree that "other crap" does exist. So why aren't the deletionists nominating the "other crap" (which includes about 1,500,000 of Wikipedia's articles) for deletion as well. It doesn't make sense to just randomly pick articles for deletion based on sources, and whatever policy there is that endorses this is policy in name only, since it isn't consistently enforced. Either enforce this policy consistently (and therefore delete the majority of Wikipedia's articles), or do away with it's status as a policy.-- Azer Red   Si?  20:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. For almost three months, there has been a request to add references and none seem forthcoming. Even if deleting articles like this empties out Wikipedia, I think it's the right thing to do. Displaying no information is better than displaying inaccurate information, or unattributed information. If we stripped the original research from the article, sentences like "Cui Jian and other performs hold the largest rock concert ever in Beijing, bringing Chinese rock all the way into the mainstream; it comes to dominate the Chinese music scene" would become "Cui Jian and others hold a concert in Beijing"; "Rinken Band's surprise success led to the second wave of Okinawan music" would become "Rinkin Band plays Okinawan music". Then, the article would be an indiscriminate collection of information, still requiring deletion. Sancho 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why would this page need references when everything it says simply points to other pages which will obviously confirm their being here? If I link to Kurt Cobain for his suicide for the year in which it occured, why would I have to include another reference when one if probably included in the article itself? Conor 16:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Kurt Cobain comitting suicide a "trend"? Part of the problem here is not that necessarily individual events did/didn't occur, it's if it counts as a trend, that's purely the opinion of the person adding it. What is the standard for inclusion? Where are the cites which define these things to be trends whilst all the other things which occurred in music aren't trends? --pgk 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Conor's observation is worth considering. The problem, I think, is that that fact about Cobain is an exception.  Most of the article consists of opinion and personal observations.  If they truly are trends, then they should be sourceable. Unschool 10:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete conceptually a problem, unless there are reliable sources defining what counts as a trend, the overall content is nothing more than the opinion of the editors of the article i.e. it is original research. Amounts to little more than an arbitary list of things which did/didn't occur. --pgk 16:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Here are the two criteria for deletion listed in Wikipedia's deletion policy that deal with lack of sources:


 * Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources - doesn't apply here, because the information in the article is notable, and users have said that sources supporting info in the article are found in other articles
 * All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed - we haven't had the chance to try, since the deletionists just want to have the article deleted rather than give editors the chance to find sources-- Azer Red  Si?  20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You have 5 days while this AFD is being considered. If you can add a reasonable number of sources in this period, the article will probably be kept. I'll certainly change my !vote if the article is improved. JulesH 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cough Any sources need to avoid becoming a synthesis of other information. Also, WP:NOT indicriminate lists of information. You need to find sources that discuss trends in music for the period not just a bunch of facts because that's not what the article is supposed to be. Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete While this is a topic we should have, I think razing the article and starting again is probably easier at this point. JulesH 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But will you and the other deletion supporters be willing to do it is what I want to know.-- Azer Red  Si?  01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is indiscriminate information; there is no standard which determines what should be put in and what should be left out. --Metropolitan90 23:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think I just found a simple solution to all this controversy that I assume no one will have a problem with. The real issue here (at least for me) is that if this article is just deleted, all of its content will be lost. If there were a way for non-admins to view past revisions of deleted articles, I wouldn't be so concerned, since the content could still be accessed and salvaged if possible.-- Azer Red  Si?  02:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cut and paste, store in a text file on your computer. Then if you merely want to look at it, you can. If you want to try and build a better article, and if it gets deleted, let me know and I'll userfy it for you to work on that article. (Though note don't ask until you are ready to work on it, not a free web host so if you aren't going to actively work on it, it'll be deleted again). --pgk 07:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is just a collection of random, unverified observations.  It bears little resemblance to an article.  I think that pgk's suggestion above is a good one for any editor who inexplicably laments the possible loss of this article.  I have nothing against us having an article on this subject, but it can't look like this.  This is a mild embarrassment to the project on which we are working. Unschool 10:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is largely a list of events and trivia; much of it doesn't deal with "trends" in music. The rest is unsourced and likely original research. Although, the rest of the Timeline of trends in music articles aren't really any better. There's not a cite in the whole lot of them. WarpstarRider 11:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should bring them all to AFD then. Any thoughts? Spartaz Humbug! 19:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be cool with that. Unschool 19:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One more support for this and I'll list the lot of them. Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's your last support vote, Spartaz. ZOT! Horologium talk - contrib 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done All now listed at AFD Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete If the original research is removed from this article, then there will be nothing encyclopedic left. Not worth keeping.--Alabamaboy 13:35, 28 May 2007 (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.