Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music/Closed

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of gangsta rappers

Complete redundancy with List of hip hop musicians; no need for a seperate list unless we make seperate lists for all other genre's subgenres (which would lead to madness). Also hard to categorize subjectively (Da Brat is a gangsta rapper?) FuriousFreddy 19:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I disagree strongly on the redundancy, but agree that this list is highly subjective and difficult to discuss - Nas, for one, is someone I would label not "gangsta," but it's debatable. The same is true for Ol' Dirty Bastard, etc. jglc | t | c 19:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You disagree with the redundancy? Everyone on List of gangsta rappers should be on List of hip hop musicians as well, making the first page redundant. --FuriousFreddy 19:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  The redundancy can be fixed by having List of hip hop musicians link to List of gangsta rappers. Gazpacho

  • You didn't understand the point. Every artist on List of gangsta rappers should be on List of hip hop musicians, if they are not already there. --FuriousFreddy 20:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep please there is a really big difference between rap and hip hop music especially gangster type rap Yuckfoo 23:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no difference between rap and hip-hop music. --FuriousFreddy 01:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and link from List of hip hop musicians. Lists don't have to be orthogonal. Gazpacho 02:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if I'm looking specifically for Gangsta Rappers I don't want to wade through the whole list of hip hop musicians. Kappa 02:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For example, Will Smith is a notable hip hop musician but not a gangsta rapper. Capitalistroadster 03:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  "Will Smith don't gotta cuss in his raps to sell records..." JRM · Talk 13:30, 10 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 16:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original Pilipino Music

Original Pilipino Music (frequently abbreviated to OPM) is original music created by anyone of Philippine descent. Oh yes, I'm sure it's frequently abbreviated. Can we abbreviate it as DEL instead? —Wahoofive (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe a Redirect to Pinoy rock or Music of the Philippines and delete the content here would be suffcient? Hamster Sandwich 07:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I consider OPMs to be a subset of Music of the Philippines. Somehow it wouldn't be right to call traditional music OPM. But that's my feeling, I could be wrong. --Chris 20:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It cannot be redirected to Pinoy rock because some OPMs are not in the rock genre. --Jojit fb 03:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It actually appears to be a common abbreviation. Who knew? Also, Filipino, Philipino, and Pilipino appear to be interchangeable; it's only 2:30 and I've already learned something new today. Eldereft 07:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC).
• Keep, and yes, they do spell it three different ways. The *why* of that is an interesting story, but I'll spare you. ;-) Xaa 10:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, there are different ways to spell Filipino :)--Dysepsion 23:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• DEL? No; keep... Google it, please. ;-) It's a common abbreviation of a valid musical genre, and there are different ways to spell Filipino. (OPM actually includes many genres; there is also Pinoy rap as well as Pinoy rock and other genres. In short, it's all music made by Filipinos anywhere, not necessarily in the Philippines or limited to classic Philippine music.) This article is relatively new, having only been edited by an anon, one other registered user, and myself, so of course it is a stub. If one of our experienced Filipino editors gets ahold of this (I am not Filipino and have never been to the Philippines; I just wrote what I could!), then it could presumably become a more complete article and thus more worthy of inclusion. I think this is just a case of VfDing an article that should have just been expanded by somebody who knew more about the topic. --Idont Havaname 04:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the Google test doesn't prove much by itself; Googling "Original American music" or a similar variation also generates lots of hits. Does this phrase mean more than the sum of the individual words? —Wahoofive (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems that it does, if you look at the Google results themselves for both OPM and original American music. The latter is often used to describe one artist for self-promotion or in some historical context, and while used by many artists there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus on what it is. I've listed this VfD at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines; hopefully some of their editors will come here and vote. --Idont Havaname 15:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm in the Philippines, and though I personally find it a rather needless acronym, it's a common term in the Philippines. Google for opm music (without quotes). Coffee 15:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I'm Filipino and I can assure you that OPM and Original Pilipino Music are widely-used terms. I first heard the abbreviation when I was younger and didn't know what it stood for until I was a teenager. --Chris 20:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The name or term OPM (Original Pilipino Music) is very popular. It was coined by the late noted journalist Teodoro "Doroy" Valencia (famous for his column "Over a Cup of Coffee"). --Saluyot 01:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In Philippine record stores, you can find an OPM category and it is as many as other categories in the store. Also, we can add the Organisasyon ng Pilipinong Mang-aawit in the OPM disambiguation page. It is an organization for Filipino professional singers in the Philippines. --Jojit fb 03:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This is why I love Wikipedia. I learn something new everyday. Thanks to on-the-ball editors like yourselves. Please feel free to expand this article. I won't withhold a vote to keep. Hamster Sandwich 03:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep However, the article really needs revision because its meaning in the present form of the article doesn't jive with how many, if not most, Filipinos define the term OPM. According to the article, as of this date, "OPM is original music created by anyone of Philippine descent. It can be in any genre, and its lyrics can be in any language." This is misleading. As far as I know, many Filipino artists (especially the more commercialized Pop music performers) limit the term OPM to Filipino Pop songs, especially those in the ballad form, popularize by artists like Martin Nievera, Rey Valera, Sharon Cuneta, and APO Hiking Society. I think, it's time to define OPM clearly. Should it refer only to Filipino Pop ballads, or should it finally mean: "OPM is simply Filipino music, or any type of music produced in the Philippines or by Filipinos regardless of their location when they composed it"? If this now becomes the more sensible and simple meaning, then OPM would become the mother umbrella of specific genres like Filipino (Pinoy) Rock, Filipino Jazz, Filipino Rap / Hip hop, Filipino Folk, etc. And I am for this more plain and sensible definition. --eLf_ideas 14:53, August 13, 2005 (CT)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. I will move it to List of music videos using animation. -Splash 16:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of music videos that are fully or majorly animated

There must be a million of these (even though only a handful are listed here). Who even cares? What does "majorly animated" mean?—Wahoofive (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Poorly defined list. The perplexing title requires editors to make some arbitrary/POV distinction of what constitutes "major". Flowerparty ^talk 06:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Majorly Delete List-cruft. Hamster Sandwich 07:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Animation is a popular gimmick for music videos, but not so outrageously common that it would be impossible to list them all. This article is a lot more likely to be completed than some of our song lists, for example. This is also an interesting topic since some of the most important videos have been animated ("Take on Me", "Opposites Attract" and "Sledgehammer" are just a few that spring to mind). I do recommend a renaming into something less awkward, like List of animated music videos. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But this article must be improved.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Criticism is welcomed!} 09:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I recommend a rename. Majorly? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to List of animated music videos. 23skidoo 14:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem with that name is that some of these are only partially animated, and in fact focus on the interaction between animation and live-action (cases in point, "Take On Me" and "Opposites Attract"). That said, keep.DS 15:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but majorly populate.  Grue  20:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. but add a lot more, and rename. →uber nemo→ ^{talk edits} 20:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rename, as mentioned above. Carbonite | Talk 20:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename as above. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename CanadianCaesar 00:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Starblind. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with a less clumsy title. Eixo 03:39, 12 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 16:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hoedown

TV-cruft. Maybe there is something to be written about the traditional dance, but this stupid game from Whose line is it anyway isn't a start. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• —Delete as per Wahoofive. Hamster Sandwich 05:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Change to Keep nice useful rewrite. Thanks Antandrus . Hamster Sandwich 02:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Two earlier votes discarded Keep. We now have a viable, creditable article on Hoedowns. Thanks, Antandrus . The disposition of the TV show material is a matter for editing. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this. If someone wants to write an article on hoedowns (and make it beyond a dicdef) that'd be great. This is not that article. -R. fiend 17:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Good save. Keep now, but if no one minds too much I think I'll merge some of the TV show bit into the Who's Line article (it's mentioned there alreasy) and add a "see also" link. -R. fiend 14:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; I expanded a bit from the article "Hoedown" in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, as well as from the Copland article. Not sure what to do with the TV section; I put it under a separate heading. Antandrus (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep reasonable rewrite. --Etacar11 22:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in light of rewrite. -216.119.144.32 23:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, that was me, forgot to log in. -D. Wu 23:17, 7 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete keep. There were four valid votes to delete and two valid votes to keep. I earlier miscounted the keep votes as one only. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tango.info

nn site, with alexa rankings helpfully included. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 04:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per submitter. Tempshill 05:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if useless technical details of the site are excluded, we've got little left but mention of it's Alexa ranking. Maybe it can be included as an external link in the Tango article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As MGM said, if you leave out all the useless technical info, we've got little more left than a link, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. --IByte 15:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Article has been expanded, vote retracted (now neutral, I'm leaving it to other voters.) --IByte 21:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable EdwinHJ | Talk 00:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep:second largest tango information service. article has been expanded, above claims if useless tech is excluded nothin but page rank is left do not apply anymore. For notability see seperate section. If Wikipedia wants to be complete on tango it has to include tango.info. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that it is considered polite and in line with Wikipedia policy to state that you are the article's author. --IByte 17:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thx, IByte, for pointing me there. Therefore I should also mention that the Tobias Conradi in the imprint of tango.info [1] is me too. All the same Tobias Conradi. And I love tango dancing and going to milongas. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: as per above -Mariano 14:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

[edit] Alexa traffic rank

rank: 365.000, reached after only 9 month of start of service.

365000 is a rank that WP itself only reached almost exactly these 9 month ago [2] .

Additional the number of websites increases steadily (August Report of NetCraft) If Wikipedia wants not to prefer big sites but rather the top XY percent, the allowed traffic rank number has to be adjusted steadily. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding characteristics

• free data download at http://open.tango.info
• multilingual structure (other large tango pages are either in english, spanish or german)
• detecting same pieces of music on different CDs, important for DJs and collectionists, because there are so many different publishings with different quality levels.

[edit] tango related google searches

High rankings for tango related searches in google:

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hollywood Musical:History and Themes

This is original research and probably copyvio, like the previous two. Mmmbeer 13:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree this looks like copyvio, but I could't find a source. Meanwhile, wikify <drini ☎> 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete term paper, already covered in Musical theater —Wahoofive (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment there is some info here that is not in the Musical theater article. I'll Wait and see before I cast a vote. Hamster Sandwich 17:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like someone publishing their own term paper. --Carnildo 23:34, 4 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and merge; the page already has a merge template. Eugene van der Pijll 11:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faggoth

Neologism used by very few people. If the only link for information about the word is a "source for rants, raves" then I'm not impressed. Jackliddle 19:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into black metal (as I originally proposed). I'm not familiar with the context, but it seems to be a term that people actually use. However, I don't think it warrants its own article. - ulayiti (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscure neologism. I'm not even sure if it deserves a one-sentence mention in black metal. Punkmorten 21:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with the non-merger Jackliddle 21:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge & redirect. There appears to be valid information here, but Google thinks it is just as likely to be a username as a (insulting) musical categorization. Plus, now I can categorize my Cradle of Filth. Eldereft 22:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Either keep or merge/redirect. (Note: I am the person who wrote the article.) Googling the term will reveal that it is in use (albeit infrequently, and often disapproved of). Therefore, I believe that it is useful to have a description of what it is. SpectrumDT 02:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirecting "faggoth" to black metal is just wrong. Besides, it is a neologism, and I'm not sure if Wikipedia is the place to explain it. But I see your reasoning. Punkmorten 20:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Please explain why "just wrong". SpectrumDT 00:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Presumably because Faggoth isn't Black Metal and a redirect would be misleading Jackliddle 14:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, but faggoth is used in BM context to describe borderline bands. (Note that faggoth is only "supposedly" distinct from BM.) SpectrumDT 16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Your note there says it all. Punkmorten 18:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Overall, someone please enlighten me: According to what Wikipedia rule is this article to be merged, rather than continue on its own? SpectrumDT 16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Presumably the lack of notability for an own article. However, no hard feelings, but I stand by my delete vote, since it's an obscure, vague neologism. This is the second Google hit, consider that. Very few people in the BM scene actually use the term. A search on Norway's largest metal forum gives zero hits (consider Norway's importance to this genre). Punkmorten 18:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I understand the reasoning behind wanting to delete, but the whole merge deal seems illogical to me. It doesn't seem to fit in very well under BM, so to me it looks better to let it stand on its own. SpectrumDT 01:46, 7 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lambgoat

Seems like a small site, insignificant outside it's small group of users. But feel free to correct me. 57.66.51.165 20:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This site is actually very important and should be left alone. (Unsigned comment by 216.197.136.14 (talk • contribs))

• Delete. Vanity page. What's more interesting is this thread on that website's forums. They banded together to disrupt Wikipedia by vandalizing pages several times, especially the Atreyu article, as you can see from its edit history. And they're still at it. Nufy8 23:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This article should stay. It relates to internet pop culture. Five million page views per month can't be an accident. (Unsigned comment by 12.208.76.100 (talk • contribs))

• Delete nn website/forumcruft. --Etacar11 02:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This article should most definitly stay. As someone alreagy mentioned lambgoat is an important site and highly relates to internet pop culture. Many people have heard of lambgoat yet have no clue what its all about and this article helps with that. It should stay just to inform the public what lambgoat in all its absurdity, is really about. ~A dude (Unsigned comment by 12.207.37.67 (talk • contribs))

• Delete Forumcruft. KevinGovaerts 14:12:20, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

TLNR

• Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. Botsie 08:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, WP is Not, and possibly protect deleted as it is likely to be recreated by anonymous fans. Usrnme h8er 11:49, 10 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.