Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second album syndrome

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 Redirect to sophomore slump. Jersey Devil 06:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second album syndrome

Second album syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

(taken from deletion prod) Neologism, unsourced (and my opinion) a worthless article, not sourced, untrue in places, not useful and maybe better off in a dictionary? Thedreamdied 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keepbut clean up and source (perhaps rename, there are two or three other names this goes by). It's a notable phenomenon, at least in terms of perception, and almost certainly sourceable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 4000+ hits for "sophomore slump" on Google News Archive. Probably a better, more generic term (hits include authors and sports rookies). --Dhartung | Talk 00:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, I mistyped -- there is an article sophomore slump after all. Merge, or delete and redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • See my note below; "regression to the mean" is an even more comprehensive term for this concept. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, but nobody uses that term in this context. I don't think there's even a perfect concordance, as the point of "sophomore slump" is generally one of expectations rather than of actual quality. A sourced comment to the effect in the sophomore slump article could be appropriate, but let's not collapse all concepts to their logical endpoints. (Why not merge football and soccer into one article?) --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Hard to go with this one, but the article has what feels like a lot of original research. I'll stay neutral until I can clear my head. --Dennisthe2 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to sophomore slump. That article needs a lot of work too, but I don't think a merge of this content is going to help it. —Celithemis 01:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - noteworthy enough term that it should have its own article, but boy does it need a rewrite. - Richardcavell 01:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect both this and sophomore slump to regression to the mean, the underlying principle of which both these topics are real life examples. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Completely unsourced. Term appears to have some scattered use, but nothing consistent (earlier drafts of this article vacillated between the current def and one that has the second album as the one that defines an artist's sound or career); best definition I found was here, but that looks like the writer's own definition rather than a commonly accepted one. No real objection to a redirect to sophomore slump, although I doubt it will see much use. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sophomore slump, a more generic and widespread term (over 15x more ghits) which appears to see use in many reliable sources. Krimpet 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Sophomore slump is a much more likely title, plus there's a source. John Reaves (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this seems notable enough! but it does need a re-write with references etc etc SMBarnZy 05:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sophomore slump not to Regression to the mean. The latter is a serious statistical phenomenon. The former is a little bit more pedistrian. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to sophomore slump. --Candy-Panda 07:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - sophomore slump is an Americanism. Catchpole 13:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • True, it is an Americansim and I wouldn't have known what on earth it meant except for reading it here, but sophomore slump has many more ghits and a redirect solves the problem of not knowing the American term StuartDouglas 14:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Catchpole, I suggested redirecting to the better article, which happens to be more of an American term. I don't know if there's a British cognate that should be included there, unless it's this one. Regardless, there should only be one article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Al-Bargit 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Violation of WP:NEO and its just like a dictionary definition which is a violation of NN anyway.Tellyaddict 16:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirectto Sophomore slump .-Robotam 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the more common term, no need to merge any of this content. There are no sources listed and probably no sources this material came from; see WP:NOT#OR. - Pious7 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Merge and expand the appropriate section of Sophomore slump. - 192.75.101.66 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sophomore slump, which covers the idea just as well.-- danntm ^T _C 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Sophomore slump. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - If it can be referenced it should stay - Wikipedia already includes music industry lingo like One hit wonder. Although I wonder if this article should be merged into the One hit wonder article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozgod (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
• Redirect Sophomore slump Meaningful username 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (WP:NEO). No objection to redirect, assuming Sophomore slump isn't also a violation. /Blaxthos 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sophomore slump, 8 months w/o sources, it likely won't get any. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a non-neologistic term (see this). Failing that, merge to sophomore slump. -- Black Falcon 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to sophomore slump, but if sources can't be found just redirect it. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 22:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep/Merge It really does need to cite its references, as it does seem to address the subject matter quite well (it is a very well known phenomena in popular music and widely commented upon) but currently reads like original research. LessHeard vanU 22:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete textbook original research Guy (Help!) 22:37, 11 March 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.