Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New jack swing artists

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. postdlf has demonstrated that this is a valid genre and that sources can be found so the page itself is valid. Unsourced entries can be removed editorially Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of New jack swing artists[edit]

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

Original Research. Unreferenced list of BLPs. Fails WP:Verifiability. Ei1sos (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to follow WP:BEFORE before you list something at AFD. Did you think this was a made up musical genre? The very first article linked in the list, Janet Jackson, has a statement classifying her first album as new jack swing that is sourced to a musicologist's work. Obviously there are reliable sources out there that classify certain recording artists as having produced work in this genre, so it the claim that this is unverifiable is easily proven incorrect. And that's all that it means to fail WP:V; that it cannot be verified, not that it isn't at present. Something does not fail WP:V just because it is currently unsourced, nor is it necessarily OR for that reason either. It's possible that some entries shouldn't be in the list because no reliable source and are there because of some editor's original research, but that's a matter for cleanup. postdlf (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources ~~and beginning with "this is a list"~~. The genre is valid, but the list is completely unsourced OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all reasons listed above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only "reason" presented above is that the list is presently unsourced. That's not a valid reason for deletion. postdlf (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There. I just added references for 17 entries, and changed the unreferenced tag to a refimprove tag. I have zero interest in this topic, but I really can't stand this kind of lazy deletion voting. We do not delete articles for fixable problems, and anyone who doesn't bother to do even a minimal bit of research to check whether an article can be verified before trying to get it deleted should be kicked in the shins. Being unverifiable is not fixable; being merely unverified at present is fixable. Lesson over. postdlf (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - Ei1sos (talk) should have made some effort to add some sources instead of just putting it up for deletion. Kudos to postdlf for making the effort to improve the article. Anyway the Article no longer conforms to Ei1sos's reasons for deletion and is therefore redundant IMO Vexorg (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced BLP inforamtion. If we need this in wikipedia, do it as a catagory. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IF this was unreferenced BLP information, how would it be any more permissible as a category? At any rate, around 25 entries already had references at the time you posted your !vote and undoubtedly more can be sourced. Further, music style classification isn't really the kind of "contentious" material BLP is concerned with, so we can take our time to verify the rest and remove only those entries that turn out to be unverifiable/incorrect. Again, every deletion !vote in this AFD was factually incorrect when made and/or has been easily refuted. The standards of WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:ATD are not being met here. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2011 (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.