Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of trends in music (2000-present)


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of trends in music (2000-present)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is totally OR. One editor user:Unschool has been going through and removing dozens of unsourced assertions, but is more than willing to see this huge misshapen blog disappear. Horologium talk - contrib 04:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nominator. Horologium talk - contrib 04:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A lot of work went into this article and it probably deserves a home somewhere. This isn't it, though.  At best, it's edit-war bait.  At worst, it's going to be a bloated dumping ground. - Richfife 04:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This chimera of an article is almost totally original research and has no hope of being rescued. I wouldn't even dare to make a new version with all verifiable claims, as it would likely morph into another big blob like this. Also, I agree with User:Richfife, this is potential battlegrounds for edit wars -- I could easily slip in something about how Martina McBride seemed to usher in a "big pop ballad" trend among women country music artists, but I know better. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mega delete. Just read it and it'll be obvious. Unschool 05:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I have never seen so many uses of the tag before, and reading through it, there's no rescuing this as far as I can see. It reads like every recording company press release and radio station 'next big thing' announcement since 2000 was mashed together into this mess and turned into an article. There are also way too many errors about artists and their genres. Nate 06:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per . CharacterZero  |  Speak  06:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, but some is nearly BJAODN-worthy, e.g. The Chinese metal scene is disrupted by the SARS scare in 2003. In other medical news ...--Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maybe -- maybe -- an article could be written on this topic at this point.  This is not it, and really is of little value to any other editors' future efforts to do so.  I went through the article and copied only the text that tries to cite a reference (then removed the transparently unreliable ones).  What is left is now on the talk page for this AFD.  I hope the rest of this "Timeline of trends in music (...)" series is better.  I think its time they were all given some examination...  Serpent&#39;s Choice 09:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless WP:OR. Noting trends is something that magazines and newspapers do, not encyclopedias. -- Cyrus      Andiron   13:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. There is potential for an article on this subject, but it should be revisited only after professional research over a period of 10-30 years following the year set when "Present" closes. -- saberwyn 23:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment—Excellent point, Saberwyn, about waiting 10-30 years after. This is true of many other articles, which you will find listed at the bottom of 2000s.  Anyone caring to go clean up those similar trash piles when we're done here? Unschool 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment--a quote from the talk page for this article notes the same thing: Has anyone else noticed that starting in the mid-80s the information on the timeline isn't as objective? For instance, look at the Mariah Carey articles. While Mariah Carey is a very popular and important artist who deserves to be on the list, the comments about her are a little flattering. This holds true for other bullets as well. I used the articles about music from the 1900s to the 1960s for a term paper and the information was perfect. Purely out of interest I decided to look at what else was written in the next 3 1/2 decades and was severely dissapointed, could future editors please be a little more objective?. That about sums it up. Not to criticize or stereotype editors, but articles that cover a period before the 1980's are from a time before the birth date of many of the editors here, which means that they tend to be more stable and less prone to fanboy/fangirl mash-noting. Horologium talk - contrib 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Obviously if we choose to delete this now, we are going to have recreate it in the future because every other decade has an article like this. Might be a better idea to actually improve the article now rather than worry about it years later.UberCryxic 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Serpent's Choice has already addressed that. It is so thoroughly trashed that it would take more work to fix the current article than it would to create a new one, preferably one sourced and balanced. Take a look at what is left after the bias and unsourced cruft is deleted: here. There's nothing left, which is why I nominated it. I think the other decades are salvageable, even the 90's, but this is hopeless. Horologium talk - contrib 02:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand what UberCryxic is saying, but I think Horologium makes the most salient point: The perspective to write this article is simply not available today.  This was one of the reasons why we decimated the article, 2000s.  Take a look at it what it had grown into, and compare it to what it looks like now.  It was absolutely amazingly bad, and it was with no hyperbole that I expressed my feeling that it was the worst article in Wikipedia.  It had become a place for anyone old enough to type to place their personal graffiti.  But then someone trimmed it down to a few things—a very few things—that were clear, and we had ourselves an article.   Now why can't we do that here?  Look at what had to be pulled out of 2000s:  Basically, was everything that was pop culture.  Anything pop had to go (after many efforts to salvage it) because we simply can't have any perspective on this stuff at this early date.  An article on music of the 1960s written in 1967 would probably barely catch the influence of certain psychedelic influences, and an article on music in the 1970s written in 1977 might think that disco would permanently replace rock as the dominant style of popular music (sometimes prayers do get answered, however).  Any article on trends in 2000s music, or fashion, or even technology, probably can't be written until at least 2012, or better yet, in my opinion, until 2020.  Writing it now simply invites chaos because of people that have no concept of notability.  Okay, have we talked enough?  Let's delete this puppy. Unschool 04:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This article has so many unverified claims and has become an overgrown stream of opnions. At the earliest an article on the music of the 2000s should be written by about 2015, as certain music styles that emerge late in a decade can overlap for a few years into the subsequent one as well.-Rumble74


 * 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.