Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010s in music (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010s in music

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been brought up by Sergecross73 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. The following text is taken directly from the "2010s in music" section:

"Mostly unsourced original research and giant paragraphs of excessive example bloat."

Serge also said the article is "largely unsourced and unfocused". DBZFan30 (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article could be scratched and started over again with proper sources.TH1980 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because not only does this article focus on musical trends of this decade, but it's an article of over 500 words, with over 70 references. 107.218.152.97 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those factors affect AFD results either way. Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh wow, did not expect this. I really just contacted the WikiProject for advice on how to approach cleaning it up. I guess I'm neutral at this point? On one hand, the article is truly in awful shape. On the other hand, I'm not sure how one could possibly argue that a decade of music could be not notable, though there could be a good WP:TNT argument to be made. This really probably warrants a bigger discussion about these "decade in music" articles - it's weird to just delete one, but in my spot-checking, many of these types of articles are on just terrible shape. Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with a 90 day deadline to improve it or it gets deleted. I looked at the other decades for music. Various decades had problematic articles and have been tagged such as 2000s in music, I suggest creating a Wikipedia Project to clean up the articles related to decades of music. As far as this article, User:Theatheistgerm created this article and a large portion of the article's content. He has not edited Wikipedia since October 1. 2016. He may have stopped editing Wikipedia for good. The are sections of the article which are problematic. For example, the Hip Hop section which is nearly all internal links and see it is very visually unappealing to the eye. Some of the picture placements are poorly done as well in some sections. The article needs better sourcing as well. desmay (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats...not really how WikiProjects work. They only work if there are already many people already interested in the subject. I think the reason these articles are perpetually in bad shape is because there's a lack of editors interested in working on this. So far, my request at existing Music WikiProjects has only resulted in this AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, as it covers the state of genres in the 2010s such as rock, pop, hip hop, just to name a few. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats just a description of the article's scope, not an argument for or against deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article may be in awful shape, however, if it is improved then it would be worth keeping. This article is informative and notable as it covers a variety of genres throughout a decade-long period. Bmbaker88 (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic of this article is clearly notable, we have articles on other decades in music and on individual years. The article does not fall under any of the reasons for deletion listed on this page. The article should instead be improved, or unreferenced material removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, and not so awful as to be blown up. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a good article with a lot information about the music in the 2010s. Why would anybody nominate it for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.208.80 (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an obviously notable topic. However, it is in need of a lot of cleanup. If the problem is systemic, and not limited to just this article (as it seems), it should be discussed in the context of all those "decade in music" articles. It will be great if we could have a guideline page that talks about things to include and how to write them (an RfC might help with that). But we don't. So, let's stick to fixing the problem for the moment. — Yash^talk stalk 17:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is related to why I started my initial discussion at the busiest music WikiProject I've observed. I was interested in trying to clean it up, but couldn't find any well-done examples to base my efforts off of. A week later, and no one, here or there, has offered any meaningful insight. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.