Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Pop
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }} Redirect to Music of the Netherlands. I would have said merge, but there hardly seems anything worth while merging. The article text will still be available in the history, so if anybody wants to do a merge, it's still possible -- RoySmith (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dutch Pop
Wikipedia does not appear to have articles for pop music originating from every country, so I do not see why this article would be an exception. At the most, it could possibly be merged into Pop music. Gary King (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, but for different reasons, in this case lack of context. The original article was basically a coatrack for some unremarkable band. That part was removed after two speedy-deletes (once by me), but the remaining article really says very little at all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - just because an article doesn't currently have much content doesn't mean that a valid article cannot be written about Dutch popular music. It's an encyclopedic subject. matt91486 (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: But the article isn't anything close to being encyclopedic as it stands now. Barring any major improvement during the time of this AfD discussion, the article should be deleted, but can alway be brought to deletion review and restored with proper content then. An article can't stand just because its subject is encyclopedic, even when the content isn't. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not relevant, really, to AfD. I understand that the article as it is at the moment is essentially worthless, butAfD is only for articles that should be deleted, not that need improvement. Content issues are for tagging and article talk page discussion. matt91486 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, how is the lack of any meaningful content in an article not relevant to an AfD? I could understand if it were simply a short article with at least some meaningful content, but this article doesn't even clear that very low bar. This article pretty much says, "Dutch music is exciting and popular and many Dutch people enjoy it, and you hear a euphonium in it a lot." Moreover, there's no references aside from a generic link to a site about euphoniums/euphonia. If nothing else applies, how about WP:SNOW? If someone improves this article greatly, I'll be more than happy to reconsider. But for now, this article simply doesn't cut it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, you haven't given a reason for deletion. You've implied that you agree that the subject is in fact encyclopedic. Just that the article needs improvement. matt91486 (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't implied anything of the kind, and you're avoiding the point altogether. You're saying that any subject that is remotely encyclopedic should have its article stay, even if the article's text is "Britney Spears is so cool!" or complete gibberish. The subject is not encyclopedic because the article is not encyclopedic. There are no reliable sources, the text does not give context as to why the subject is notable, and the article as it stands now does not belong on Wikipedia. Perhaps if you spent as much time trying to improve the article itself as you have trying to parse my words (incorrectly), the article might be worth saving. If you feel that stringly about this article, quit wasting our time and yours, and fix the problem instead of trying to say there is no problem. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say there was no problem, I agree with you that the article is in poor shape. So I hardly think I'm any more guilty of parsing words than you might be. But this is besides the point, and not worth getting into a personal argument over. Generally speaking, when the subject of an article is encyclopedia, I'm going to vote keep for it even if the article is in terrible shape. Because it could be salvaged with some work. I don't have the time to personally salvage all of the articles worth keeping, surprisingly enough. But I disagree that you say a subject not being encyclopedic because an article isn't; if George Washington had a poor quality article, he'd still be an encyclopedic subject. matt91486 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- But if the George Washington article was as unencyclopedic and beyond repair as this one, I'd still vote to delete. Besides, I'm not convinced that "Dutch pop" (by that title) is all that encyclopedic, anyway. A redirect to Music of the Netherlands is a good idea, though. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough; it just seems as if we have different personal views on that. I agree that "Dutch pop" is probably a poor article title, and I would probably move it to Dutch popular music. Right now there's an article on American popular music, but not much else in the way of devoted pop music articles; this is interesting, because there are generally rock music articles for many countries. That said, right now, that redirect might be the best solution. I do think the topic is encyclopedic and should eventually be branched out, but this way, we're not really losing anything and can work towards future expansion. I try to be reasonable even if I worry about deletion precedent, haha. matt91486 (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't implied anything of the kind, and you're avoiding the point altogether. You're saying that any subject that is remotely encyclopedic should have its article stay, even if the article's text is "Britney Spears is so cool!" or complete gibberish. The subject is not encyclopedic because the article is not encyclopedic. There are no reliable sources, the text does not give context as to why the subject is notable, and the article as it stands now does not belong on Wikipedia. Perhaps if you spent as much time trying to improve the article itself as you have trying to parse my words (incorrectly), the article might be worth saving. If you feel that stringly about this article, quit wasting our time and yours, and fix the problem instead of trying to say there is no problem. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway, though, if deletion is the option here, I'd say that a redirect to Music of the Netherlands is preferable to outright deletion, so I hope this is kept in mind. matt91486 (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, you haven't given a reason for deletion. You've implied that you agree that the subject is in fact encyclopedic. Just that the article needs improvement. matt91486 (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, how is the lack of any meaningful content in an article not relevant to an AfD? I could understand if it were simply a short article with at least some meaningful content, but this article doesn't even clear that very low bar. This article pretty much says, "Dutch music is exciting and popular and many Dutch people enjoy it, and you hear a euphonium in it a lot." Moreover, there's no references aside from a generic link to a site about euphoniums/euphonia. If nothing else applies, how about WP:SNOW? If someone improves this article greatly, I'll be more than happy to reconsider. But for now, this article simply doesn't cut it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not relevant, really, to AfD. I understand that the article as it is at the moment is essentially worthless, butAfD is only for articles that should be deleted, not that need improvement. Content issues are for tagging and article talk page discussion. matt91486 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: But the article isn't anything close to being encyclopedic as it stands now. Barring any major improvement during the time of this AfD discussion, the article should be deleted, but can alway be brought to deletion review and restored with proper content then. An article can't stand just because its subject is encyclopedic, even when the content isn't. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, this is a hoax. I am from the Netherlands, and there is not that much euphonium in Dutch pop music, and it is certainly not the "heart and soul". Just try this Google search, which only gave me 8 hits, including the AfD nominated article. Kraaiennest (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Not surprised. As I said, the first version of this article (which was speedy-deleted) was just an excuse to mention some band, and the only diference betwen that version and this one was that the band reference was taken out, and I suspect the original author (who has not been heard from in this discussion) was merely waiting for any adverse attention to go away so he could restore the band to the article. I've seen it happen before. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Music of the Netherlands. This doesn't have enough sourced information for an article and is slightly POV. --Dhartung | Talk 11:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion, there is nothing to merge since there is no reliable information. Redirecting is possible of course. Kraaiennest (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2008 (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.
