Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of trends in music from the United Kingdom


 * 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 no consensus to delete. If anyone figures out a good way to merge/rename these, that doesn't require AfD. W.marsh 16:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of trends in music from the United Kingdom

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'd like to put Timeline of trends in music from the United Kingdom for deletion, along with all its subpages. These pages are really crap. Maybe redirecting to Music of the United Kingdom would be good, but otherwise the page needs massive reshuffling - the music trends dealt with in these pages is just folk music, and doesn't seem to mention any other sorts of music. I've talked with the article creator, but deletion may be the best thing to do with this, IMHO Montchav 14:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, the other pages that would be deleted too are:

English Music
1500–1899 | 1900–1949 | 1950–1959 | 1960–1969 | 1970–1979 | 1980–1989 | 1990–1999 | 2000–2010

Scottish Music
1500–1899 | 1900–1949 | 1950–1959 | 1960–1969 | 1970–1979 | 1980–1989 | 1990–1999 | 2000–2010 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montchav (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Extremely Weak Keep with conditions, unless there is a Celtic-Anglo-Saxon folk music time line in existence already. Its not a bad encyclopedia topic, its just badly organized and lacks much information. It also isn't written into sentences. This should be flattened to maybe three articles, one for 1500-1899 for all three regions, one from 1900-1959, and one from 1960 on. It needs sentences, complete with capitol letters, commas, verbs, and periods, like this one. But it doesn't really fall into an encyclopedic category or any other criterion for deletion.--CastAStone|(talk) 15:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems inevitable that occasionally you will find one whose original author has lost interest in it, and no one has stepped forth to move it ahead.  It also seems inevitable that you will find a page whose focus has changed from what the originator had in mind.  This may have happened to these pages.  Neither of these events is grounds for deletion.  Timelines for music, though, serve valuable indexing functions and serve the needs of human browsers.  Not averse to merging the pages per CastAStone's suggestion. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pages but re-use the information - there are good pages on the development of music in the UK: Music of England, Music of Scotland, Music of Wales, and Music of Northern Ireland - which deal predominantly with the folk tradition. Any useful information from these lists could be added to these and then the all the mini list articles be deleted. Madmedea 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The more I think about this one the more confused I get - without a decent criteria/definition of what goes in the list it just becomes a repository of random information - and therefore an example . of WP:INFO. --Madmedea 21:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename? Maybe move it something like Folk music in the United Kingdom. --Montchav 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC) (original AFD nominator)
 * Moved to Folk music in the United Kingdom, being bold. I will change the links to there after the closing of this AFD if necessary. --Montchav 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regretted doing that!. There isn't really any reason any of the subpages contain the specific bits of information they contain. Most of the articles are about folk-ish musicians, but some are not folk at all, and some aren't nearly as notable as other musicians. I'm going back to my delete opinion. --Montchav 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Question If you regretted doing the move; would you like it to be undone? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 18:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Undo the move please It wasn't based on much logical thinking. After that, I'll try to leave this AFD debate alone. --Montchav 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge, per nom. I would suggest combining into Timeline in English music, and Timeline in Scottish music only, without the births and deaths entries. --Vsion 05:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep merging, renaming, and cleaning up are probably all called for but none of that involves deletion. Eluchil404 09:56, 17 February 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.