Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trombone suicide


 * 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 leaning towards deletion. The sources are simply bad, but policy based consensus indicates some sources might be available and a good candidate for a merge and AFD is not cleanup. Secret account 03:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Trombone suicide

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. References provided, a single paragraph in a book on another subject and a web based forum. Notability not established. RadioFan (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources seem quite adequate for the nature of the topic. If further sources peter out then we would merge up into other topics such as trombone or marching band per our editing policy.  There is no case for deletion. Warden (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Commet The nature of the topic doesn't determine the adequacy of the sources.  Forums aren't reliable sources, ever.--RadioFan (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep BUT. Here is the encyclopedic topic, which doesn't exist yet: Marching band choreography. This should be a section of that. For the time being, let it stand. Off to Articles for Creation I go. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh, Articles for Creation is a bit of a catastrophe, isn't it? I don't have time or the inclination to write this one. Where is Article Rescue Squadron when you need them? Carrite (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Listed at ARS for expansion. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, but perhaps if it doesn't improve in the future it may be best to merge it into a more general marching band article. Ducknish (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems like an article destined to be filled with original research from passing students. If created it will need ongoing oversight from an experienced editor.--RadioFan (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, a forum is never a reliable source, and so far there's only one other source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Here's one source below, perhaps the only one available at this time from Google News and Books searches on the entire internet!
 * —Northamerica1000(talk) 12:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * —Northamerica1000(talk) 12:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge: Not notable of other marching band choreography topics p  b  p  15:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a new one on me, but I see no reason at all why we shouldn't consider this to be an encyclopedic topic. Issues about us not yet having anything broader on marching band choreography are covered under WP:IMPERFECT, as are questions about lack of coverage volume. If we had too little on this manoeuvre and plenty on band choreography, then merging might be appropriate but we're actually in the opposite case here, so let's support what we've already built.
 * One request though - photos! or even video. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are tons of videos and photos, but I could find none falling within CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or GFDL.ifny (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources. Where are they? I see none. The only hit I get on Google Books is the "Play It from the Heart" book. Literally nothing else says anything about Trombone Suicide. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's something, not nothing. Warden (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For a topic like this, with no 'official' title, I'd expect many sources would be found under one or more synonyms for the term, not necessarily the one form of the article title as given. That's going to need legwork by someone who knows the topic, not just a knee-jerk response from me. Blanking vast swathes of an article that's less than a week old, and is already under discussion at AfD, is not a helpful move. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources should come first.  Writing an article based on personal experience followed by a search for sources to support it is not how a good article is created.--RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also like a pony. However we have to work with what we have, and what we have is an article that's written, albeit largely unsourced. Do we move forwards or backwards? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are no sources, then how we do move forwards? Quit dodging the question. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Find some sources. Add them. It's not hard, editors do it all the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Give it time folks, this article is barely a month old. If you build it, they will come.ifny (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how wikipedia works. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone once said "Wikipedia isn't here to promote ideas to the point where they may become notable, that notability must come first."--RadioFan (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP I started this article, and was not speaking from "personal experience" -- I'm not even remotely a trombone player :) I came across the phenomenon online, and tried to find out more information on what it actually was, how it started etc. So I started to research it -- as extensively as Google would allow. In the process I realized that it has been around for a while -- supported by first-hand participants mentioning participating in it decades ago (yes I know that's not a reliable source, but that indicates that they may well exist, just a matter of tracking them down). Folk traditions exist but may not be well-documented online -- but that does not mean they do not exist or are not notable; I added the unreliable sources template myself so that others could help rectify the problem. There are 18,700 Google results for "trombone suicide", 929,000 results for trombone suicide and 1,430 results for trombone headchopper. Just because one layperson (aka me) can't find non-self-published sources for something, does not mean that the sources do not exist. There is already one published book reference that has been added; more will follow if given time. And that is also why I have asked for expert attention for this article -- hopefully music teachers, musicians etc. will be able to weigh in. We should not be too quick on the delete trigger -- the article is barely a month old! Let's give the experts/Wikipedians time to find this page and add credible online/offline sources to it. ifny (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't get this "give it a chance" methodology. Not once have I seen "just let it sit" be an effective method of source-finding. That's why we still have unsourced articles dating back to 200-freaking-6. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I share 10lbHammer 's concerns here. I've yet to see an article where sources were assumed to exist when none could be found ever see any improvement much less any of the assumed sources materialize.  Either sources exist or they dont.  A brief mention in a single book isn't enough to build a good article with and it's not enough to demonstrate notability.--RadioFan (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read the links that TPH deleted today, and watch the YouTube videos contained therein, you'll see an online discussion between a number of people, all of whom are cheerfully throwing around the term "trombone suicide" as if it's anything but new. Now of course this is primary and less than RS, so it doesn't serve to support an article to our required standard. However it's also a pretty big hint that this technique is known and discussed within its field, and so if that's the case, we would expect that more polished sources do exist and should be findable by those who look for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But "we" already did look for them and found jack shit. You can't hang an article on "well, there might be sources". That never works. Either there are sources or there aren't; don't speculate that there might possibly may be sources. There might possibly may be sources saying that I've written twenty #1 country songs this year; does that mean I'm notable and should have an article because it may be the case? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "But "we" already did look for them and found jack shit. "
 * No, you didn't. Your past record for searching ability is poor (you couldn't even find xargs) and even you have managed to turn up a book reference for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A book reference. Not several, a. The other books on Google Books, when searching for the exact term "trombone suicide", don't even contain it. I actually clicked through to each book, and it was patently a false positive. For instance, why would this book turn up if it has nothing on trombone suicide? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly a notable concept; I added a couple of references. The term and the routine are obviously well-established, but not written about a lot - more recorded (Google Search finds mostly YouTube videos). The article should be developed further and more sources found, but the subject is clearly a keeper IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2013 (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.