Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This was a long debate and took me some time to parse it all. Based on the content of the arguements here, I find that the preponderance of the "Delete" concerns can be dealt with by methods other than deletion, such as proper sourcing and trimming of the list, or possibly renaming the article. Since deletion is not a cleanup method, and there are also a number of valid, policy-based keep reasons as well, I am closing this as a consensus keep.Jayron32 18:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of honorific titles in popular music[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of honorific titles in popular music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is in fact the fourth nomination for this page. The first was closed as no consensus, on the grounds that "it has been argued that the information here is sourced." The second was closed as keep, largely because the nomination (which was made 9 days after the first one) was withdrawn. The third nomination, in October 2008, was speedy kept, again on the grounds that the article is sourced. It has become painfully clear, however, that this article can never be a properly sourced, neutral article. The article's talk page shows multiple examples of poor sourcing and references being used to support "titles" that clearly do not do so. To take just one peformer, among other things Michael Jackson was listed as the "Biggest Pop Star of the '80s," the "God of Music," and the "God of Pop," on the basis of a blog entry beginning "Michael Jackson was unquestionably the biggest pop star of the '80s"; a remark by Wyclef Jean that Jackson was "his music god"; and the title of an article reading "How Michael Jackson became a Pop God," respectively. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that these are not actually "honorific titles," but rather nicknames; that the lead sets out criteria for inclusion which are routinely ignored by editors with an axe to grind; and that factual accuracy is an ongoing problem for the article. Ultimately, this type of information (for example, that Elvis was known as The King, and that Michael Jackson was known as the King of Pop) might belong in the articles of the various subjects, but this list is an unredeemable mess of POV and factual inaccuracy that requires far too much interpretation on the part of Wikipedia editors as to what constitutes being "widely known" by a particular title or nickname. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If by "very well sourced" you mean "has lots of sources, most of which are highly questionable, then yes. Sorry, but there has to be a better reason than "it's got a lot of sources," which was the justification for keeping previously. This list has extreme problems. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The argument that it is well sourced is not a valid one and the fact that it has many citations is deceptive, as it is clear that most of the sources are being misused. This clearly fails "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article" at WP:BURDEN. This is not an isolated phenomenon but occurs throughout the article. The title of the article is also highly problematic, it is not clear that these are "honorific titles" and even those that are not misused descriptions are mainly simple "nick names" or merely marketing tools. The two articles that underpin the lead are also dubious. They do not clearly and unambiguously set this out as a phenomenon, but are little more than lightweight news stories, which are being elevated here to act like academic sources or commentary of similar value. The article does not demonstrate that this is a widely accepted or discussed phenomenon and so is really very close to producing a synthesis (WP:SYN). I agree with the proposer that the handful of "titles" that are in regular use should simply be given in their own articles, this article adds nothing valid, and simply encourages pointless listing and misuse of sources.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is pretty innaccurate! Just an example: Queen of Pop. Since when have Beyonce, Shakira, Nina (who is she?), Gwen Stefani, Britney Spears or Rihanna been named Queen? Beyonce and Rihanna only have 3 albums and most of it is R&B, Shakira is more latin, but her success isn't really that big, Gwen has just two solo albums, Britney is named princess and I never heard of Nina... The "reliable" sources are just articles written subjectively by someone who gives an opinion. And that is the only place where they are called like that! I can call Kylie Queen of Pop in my blog or newspaper, but it doesn't mean it's true... --79.112.50.60 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we disregard this delete by --79.112.50.60 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC) due to the fact that its possible Wp:Socks —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITalkTheTruth (talk • contribs) [reply]
I see no reason to consider 79.112.50.60 a sock puppet, unless you can identify some other participant in this discussion for whom they appear to be an alternate identity. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The complaints about this list are similar to another list which included anything based on a single reference; it was similarly argued that the inclusion criteria were too easy, and that issues should appear in the specific article. So, I'm sympathetic. However, entries in that other article carried significant negative implications. This is just a collection of uses of certain terms (king/queen/etc.) to refer to entertainers. Why does it matter if the phrases are qualified as "honorific titles" or "nick names" or even "marketing tools"? They are phrases used to refer to the entertainer, and the list lists them. The Holsey article, however "lightweight" it may be, is an article about the phenomenon; I'm sure people could find mentions in general books on music, if they wished. Complaints about references can be resolved by checking the ref and removing entries; many entries include a quote from the ref showing usage. Gimmetrow 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It matters a great deal. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fansite, blog, or random collection of facts, and it's supposed to be academic and accurate. An honorific title is a title bestowed upon individuals or organizations as an award in recognition of their merits, such as Knight, Patriarch of Venice, or Hero of the Russian Federation. An honorific is a title like Doctor, Mrs or Officer. A nickname is usually the familiar, diminutive, or truncated form of a proper name, like Bobby, or a descriptive name, like Sparky (for an electrician) or Bones (for a surgeon). As I stated in my original post, a list of this sort requires far too much interpretation on the part of editors as to what constitutes "being widely known as." Here's another randmonly chosen example: Ciara, "Princess of Crunk"? According to this list, yes. The source? A magazine article titled "Ciara, Princess of Crunk" that makes no other mention of this alleged "honorific title." Exploding Boy (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article not refer to that person with that title? Is that inaccurate? Gimmetrow 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only in the article title, something this entry has in common with several others. In other words, a catchy article title is being used to support the claim that a given performer is widely known by a given nickname, but the source doesn't make that claim at all. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article, as constructed, includes verifiable phrases; it doesn't actually assert any specific title is "widely known", only that it was used in a reliable source. That removes the key part of your argument above. What's left - a complaint about "nickname" vs. "honorific"? That could, if people wanted, be addressed by renaming the article something like royal nicknames in popular music. Gimmetrow 00:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of making either a list called "list of honorific titles in popular music" or "royal nicknames in popular music"? Separated from the context of articles themselves, the list of titles/nicknames is a huge mass of trivia. I know that if this were a category it would get deleted pretty quickly as a trivial grouping. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Our criteria for notability require more than a single, offhand mention in a single source. At minimum, the phrase would need to be used and be mentioned as significant in the article, and even then I can't see how this list is even slightly encyclopedic. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our WP:Notability criteria apply to topics, and not to every individual fact in an article or list. We don't require two citations for every sentence in an article, for instance. However, if you wanted to argue for requiring 2+ citations for each entry, that could be discussed. Gimmetrow 07:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Furthermore, if it is kept it needs to be moved, because, per Exploding Boy, these are NOT "honorific titles", because last I checked neither the media nor popular culture have the right to grant such titles. They are nicknames, and rather than all being listed here, based on dubious standards (i.e., one article calling Ciara the "Princess fo Crunk"), they should be noted (if appropriate) on their owner's article. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep very well referenced article, there is something wrong with wikipedia when such articles can be put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With a reference section like that, why are you ever bothering trying to destroy it? And if you knew it was kept for three previous times, why try for a 4th time to delete it? Leave it be already. Its fine. Dream Focus 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no compelling reason to delete sourced content. Granted there are some completely valid concerns, the article sources should be independently checked to verify that they do in fact support the statement, but that is not an issue for AfD. Also perhaps a secondary criterion be stipulated that the "honorific" be cited by two (or more or more depending on what consensus is reached) reliable sources, not just one, but again that is another discussion.--kelapstick (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to both the above comments, the references are one of the problems; it's tempting to take a long list of references as proof that an article is "well referenced" and that the information is accurate and being used accurately in the article. This article has been kept twice before on the basis of being "well referenced," apparently because commenters haven't actually been doing the work of carefully checking each reference against the claims being made in the article. Deleting sourced content is required when the content is using the sources in novel ways, and it's been demonstrated that this is precisely what is going on here. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will rephrase my statement. Every item on that list is not poorly sourced nor is every item sourced using original research. I don't see an article having some poorly sourced content as justification to delete some well sourced content. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Remove the poorly sourced/original research, keep the content that is directly supported with a reliable source, and improve sourcing where it can be done. --kelapstick (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that all those who are voting to keep this article will be following through by ensuring that all its problems are solved... Exploding Boy (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the fourth AfD for this article. The last two were keep and speedy keep. Can't we find other things to debate? The list includes notable and encyclopedic information that is worth keeping in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC) (a.k.a Wikipedia's King of Pop) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the reasons were well explained above. As for "notable" and "encyclopedic," I disagree. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it began a POV page. Quote also 79.112.50.60, i can call Robbie Williams, the King of Rock 'n' Roll on a newspaper, but it doesn't mean it's true... S&J (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I respect a lot of people who have worked hard on this article, but its concept is fundamentaly flawed. There's no such thing as "honorifics in popular music". There's no hierarchy of titles in music nor any system of bestowing honor, and these can never be more than nicknames. Because of that, focusing on "honorific" nicknames instead of all nicknames makes this a very subjective list. And if you were to include all pop music nicknames, it would still be an assemblage of trivia. And then there are some that aren't even commonly-used terms for the artists; I've mentioned to one of the editors before that R.E.M. and The Smashing Pumpkins are not commonly known as "Kings of alternative rock" (I should know; I wrote intensively-researched Featured Articles on both subjects). Many of these nicknames are notable in relation to the artists, but they are not notable as a subject unto themselves. The list concept is flawed and many of the references have deep problems as pointed out above by others. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment Combing through the cites, I see a lot of sources referenced where writers use the term "pop princess" or similiar. This is a common music journalist convention; it's not a proper title, instead it's a fancy way of saying "female pop singer". These people have to make their articles interesting to read, after all. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, with an inclination toward renaming - I think a lot of this article's problem stem from the title and the lead. For one thing, "honorific titles" is a vague term; its application here seems mostly to be "titles of regality or corporate significance". Whether it's that or, simply, "honorific titles" seems an arbitrary cut-off -- why not include a musician nicknamed "the Model T of neo-classical jazz a capella"? Based on the article title, because it isn't "honorific" (and doesn't fit the mold of most of the other included items), it's be excluded. Furthermore, the establishment of notability is ridiculous -- even the selectively quoted material (from just one source, mind you) focuses on nicknames, with "titles" presented as just an afterthought. What comes after -- funneling more of the lead toward specific "honorific titles" is uncited and ORish. So, yeah, my recommendation is renaming this to "List of nicknames in popular music" and ditch the artificial, thinly-sourced and lame attempt to make it seem "honorific titles" deserve separate/sole recognition. --EEMIV (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on renaming proposal. Renaming would get around one of the major problems (the unsupported idea that these are honorific titles), but I can see two major problems that arise. First, the article might get even larger as that would imply that every jazz and rap singer (to give just two examples) could be in the list (e.g. Shawn Carter = Jazzy = JayZ = Jiggy). The second is whether such a list would be any closer to reaching WP:N, particularly "Significant coverage: ... that sources address the subject directly in detail", in short we might be trading one non-notable article that encourages endless pointless listing for a slightly more logical one that does the same. Personally I am only in favour of list articles where the list in some way pulls together relevant knowledge that could not be done in any other way and I am not sure that such an article would do that. If those problems can be surmounted it might be possible to build some kind of consensus around the proposal.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely see your point, and even as I wrote my comment above, I noticed that the underlying notability issue remains unaddressed. I see just the one reference that addresses the notion of nicknames in music as a broad topic; substantiation for individual entries' nicknames verifies the nickname, but doesn't convey notability to the overall topic as a whole. But, I figured the single reference in the lead was the only one that edges toward "titles", and am assuming there are other third-party sources out there that address musicians' nicknames as a whole. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if that guess is wrong; as someone not particularly engaged (i.e. not even a consumer of) music press, I didn't feel comfortable asserting the overall absence of such notability-establishing material; happy to leave that to those who better know the field. --EEMIV (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not my favourite article here by any means, and the inclusion of things like "His Purple Majesty" as honorific titles seems very dubious and the list certainly needs trimming to those cases where the title concerned has been commonly used, but I feel that this has already been debated enough and consensus is unlikely to change, so lets leave it alone for a good while and revisit it in a year or two if there are still concerns.--Michig (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me get this straight... you're voting keep because you think the consensus is keep? That reasoning seems... faulty. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not voting since AFD is not a vote. I'm expressing an opinion that this should be kept, and also expressing an opinion that this has been discussed enough.--Michig (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has survived 3 previous AFDs on more or less similar grounds: "well, it's got a lot of sources"; "it's been through an AFD before"; "it really does have a lot of sources and has been through an AFD before..." We need to be looking at the deltion proposal (or, if you prefer, the article) on its own merits. It's been a suitable length of time since the last discussion, and the major, unsolvable problems remain. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the article and the arguments in favour of deletion. Please just accept that my opinion differs from your own and move on.--Michig (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lots of problems. Anyone care to define "honorific title"? "Boss" and "The Voice" are nicknames, no? Also, these are mostly based on a passing reference to the artist in this way, rather than it being how they are widely known. Further, is the topic of honorific titles in pop music a notable one? Do we have sources discussing it? Fences&Windows 17:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable list. Several of the "keep" arguments seem to be "it has a lot of sources", but that tells me zilch about its notability as a list. Hairhorn (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please keep in mind that we do not delete articles because they are "non-notable"; we need a more compelling and dire reason, i.e. a hoax, libelous, etc., because per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE we consider other options first and the proposals above to rename to be about nicknames or something else are good. The inidvidual items on the list are verifiable through reliable sources and that means the most here. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion, but it's very much a criterion for AFD deletion. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this article has already been kept a few times, it should be speedily kept as "keep trying until its deleted" nom. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That an article has survived previous deletion discussions does not mean it is not a candidate for deletion. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renominations are generally unproductive and unhelpful, especially a fourth go around. So, instead of an article, we would have four deletion discussions? How does that contribute to the cataloging of human knowledge and benefit our readership rather than having an article that at least some segment of our community's finds relevant? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are they? On what basis do you draw that conclusion? If you'd bothered to read the original rationale for deletion I posted, you would have learned that the first AFD was closed as no consensus, on the grounds that "it has been argued that the information here is sourced," something clearly problematic given the subsequent AFDs and the article's current state, and just not a very good reason for determining consensus or whether or not an article should be deleted. The second was closed as keep, largely because the nomination (which was made 9 days after the first one) was withdrawn. The third nomination, several months later, was speedy kept, again on the grounds that the article has sources. We don't keep articles solely because they have many sources, and we certainly don't keep them because "some segment of our community finds them relevant." This is supposed to be a scholarly work, and encyclopedia. We can have more articles than a paper encyclopedia, and longer ones, but there's no expectation that we should include every topic; that's why we have criteria for inclusion. This list fails on several grounds, it's a mess of POV and selective use of dubious sources (even ones that might otherwise be considered reliable), nobody can even agree on the basic criteria for inclusion on the list itself, and we have significant disagreement over whether the list title is accurate or applicable. This is a wide-open invitation for original research or novel synthesis, there is no possibility of finding a standard or threshold for inclusion, and there's zero evidence that there is even such a concept in the real world or in scholarly literature. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THe items on this list are sourced by sources that exist in the real world. No one is presenting a real reason to delete here, to improve, to revise, certainly, but it meets our basic criteria for inclusion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, if you see here we do have at least one international instance in which someone is given an "honorific title" in regards to "popular music". Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "honorific title" in that source refers to the Chinese phrase "big sister." Linguistically that is an honorific, since it's used when addressing young women to whom the speaker is unrelated. It's an entirely different concept, and the author is not making the case that this is an example of an "honorific title in pop music." Exploding Boy (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletions are made for "articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources ..."(at WP:DEL). I think that covers what is being argued here for those who believe it should be deleted.--Sabrebd (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, most of the items on the list are covered in reliable sources, hence the arguments to keep. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely the problem: people are just looking at the list of references, without actually bothering to read the sources and determine whether they actually support what they're being used to support, and in many cases they don't. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone. Reading through the list and references just inspired me to go ahead and make a red link blue with Mao Amin, arguably China's biggest pop star of the 1980s, who is directly discussed in published books even English-language ones, which I focused on for the sake of our article as its the English Wikipedia (you can find much more in Chinese of course). If anything, I wish more participants would move beyond the discussions to article improvement. Imagine what we might get done! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The biggest problem I have with this list is that it is inherently indiscriminate. What is an honorific title? What are the criteria for inclusion? What separates an honorific title from a regular nickname? If this article were "List of nicknames in popular music", with the criteria that it has to actually be some widely used nickname as opposed to one article calling somebody "The Princess of Crunk", then that would be one thing. But it is not. It is a collection of indiscriminate information, and as such it should be deleted. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is a pretty plainly discriminate list as it has six clear bases of inclusion: 1) only titles; 2) only honorific titles; 3) only honorific titles in music; 4) only honorific titles in popular music; 5) implied per our other guidelines/policies, only honoroific titles in popular music that are verifiable; and 6) only honorific titles in popular music that are verifiable in reliable sources. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, this list fails on basically every one of those criteria. It hasn't been established that the names being included are "titles" or "honorific titles"--indeed it's been convincingly argued that they are neither. One of the criteria is that these are supposed to be titles "conferred" on popular music artists, yet Sharon Osbourne is on the list and she isn't an artist even if she is in the industry, and "confer" implies being bestowed from a position of authority, as the Queen bestows knighthoods. Several of the musical styles listed are not "popular music" styles, including gospel, polka, skiffle, bhangra, opera, raï, and noise. The verifiability and reliable source issues are insurmountable, as has been discussed at length. We have blogs, offhand comments and titles of articles (even those published in reliable sources) being used to support the implicit and utterly false claim, based on their inclusion on the list, that all these people have had honorific titles bestowed upon them. And we have no scholarly or reliable sources that claim that (a) the phenomenon of "honorific titles in popular music" exists or is important, or (b) that the nicknames by which some performers are known are important or widely acknowledged. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is plainly obvious that terms like "pop princess", "king of pop," "King of rock n roll," etc. pervade popular culture. We don't need a source to tell us the obvious, oranges are obviously orange. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't actually addressed anything I said. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing substantive in the way of a reason to redlink that needs addressing. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "redlink" in the above post, but there are multiple issues identified in my post above, all of which support deletion, and none of which you have addressed. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redlinked article (crazy cockatiel man) is one that does not exist versus a blue link (Napoleon). Any so-called issues are either inaccurate or fixable whether by renaming or additional referencing, which support keeping and improving or revising, but no reason has been presented that there is some desperate urgent need to prevent any further efforts to improve the content further or merge it in the extreme worst case scenario. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just never heard "to redlink" used as a synonym for "delete" before. In any case, it's clear you're choosing to ignore the substantial problems, even in the face of careful and repeated explanation, so I see little point in continuing this exchange. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am just not humoring perceived problems that do not really exist (someone could shout the fire ants are taking over all they want, but if they really are not then we cannot reasonably be expected to take measures to defeat them); sure the article is not perfect, but there is no dire need to halt production altogether. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everything is sourced and its managed to stay around 3x with great support the last two times. Though I believe that the articles title needs to be changed maybe to like "Pop Music Titles or Nicknames" I believe it does have relevance to it. Thats my opinion ITalkTheTruth (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even when sourced, it's often a case of some reporter/fanboy using the term, as if it is A) A realtitle and B) That they somehow have the authority to make that declaration. In reality, a collection of opinions. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Its not perfect. There are a few bad sources, though most are good, but I think the article should continue to be worked on. It made it through 3 AFD's and it seems like there is many editors that want to make it better even some who want it deleted in the past. I think maybe like ITalkTheTruth says the name should be changed to "Pop Music Titles or Nicknames." Kelvin Martinez (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you (or anyone else) have any suggestions on how to deal with the issues raised under the original retitle suggestion?--Sabrebd (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that "list of nicknames in pop music" wouldn't be any more encyclopedic than the existing title. Bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a scholarly work, I'd like to seem some convincing argument that such a list would be. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the relisting admin: I see that the debate is still pretty lively so it may be the best to leave it open for a while. My opinion is that this article indeed has a problem with the indiscriminate case, since there is no real definition of honorific titles in popular music. However, if a source was found describing those, most of the article would become useful. --Tone 15:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No, I don't think that renaming will save this list. Poor to illegitimate sourcing is not "well sourced". There may well be an interesting social analysis awaiting an appropriate sociologist researcher underlying the motivation for producing and supporting this article, but so long as the core editors of this article insist on preserving "trash citation" it will not meet Wikipedia standards. --Bejnar (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article is better sourced than most other articles at Wikipedia - and obviously benefits greatly from the scrutiny given it by detractors and defenders alike. The subject matter is popular music, not quantum theory, and sources must necessarily come from the media, a power which, contrary to what has been claimed above, does have the "authority" to bestow titles on people, whether we like it or not. By the way, neither of the two Wikipedia articles used above by a "deleter" to define what "honorific" means has a single reference. Likewise, neither the Oxford nor the Webster dictionaries state that an honorific title has to be bestowed by an authority - they are simply marks or terms of respect. Which is why they are different from nicknames. So that nips that one in the bud. :) A random look through the sources given in the article shows a high percentage of respectable publications being used as references, and Wikipedia is clear on that - if it ain't a reliable & verifiable source, out it goes. Some people wishing to delete the article use the argument that it ain't encyclopedic - Wikipedia has many advantages over the traditional format and concept of encyclopedia, in fact, in the strict dictionary meaning, it isn't even an encyclopedia - and its five basic pillars can be summed up as verifiable accuracy - not truth, authoritative sources, consensus and be bold. There are over 3 million articles on the English Wikipedia and many, if not most, need far more work on them than the article up for deletion. Whether the subject matter is to one's personal taste is obviously irrelevant - as editors at Wikipedia we are bound to make existing articles as good as possible. Let's use everyone's time productively. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merriam Webster defines "title" as: an appellation of dignity, honor, distinction, or preeminence attached to a person or family by virtue of rank, office, precedent, privilege, attainment, or land." Many, if indeed not most, of the sources do not attach appellations to the musicians in question, they merely use the terms "father," "mother," "king," &c. as descriptors. "You're considered the father of death metal" is a different thing from "The Father of Death Metal, Chuck Schulder," just as "Elizabeth, Queen of England, made an appearance at Winchester Cathedral" is different from "the kings and queens of France and Germany fought amongst themselves and with each other for nearly a century." Calling someone "a king among men" does not make him "The King of Men." Take a look through the sources and note how many are uncapitalized. A very, very large number of the sources are not "bestowing" or even mentioning, true titles, and are then getting misused on the list. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this article is fundamentally flawed and should be deleted unless there are viable proposals to restructure it. The topic is vague and improperly defined - the sources are clearly not the primary issue. List articles are already tough to maintain, so we must guard against the ones based totally on editors' ideas and opinions and synthesis of their own research. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are which is why the article will be kept. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I don't see any here other than "let's just work on it." If the concept is flawed it is a lot harder to ever get it up to par.Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please be sure to read the full discussion above as everything from renaming to resourcing and such has been proposed. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did read the whole discussion. I'm sorry I don't see it that way. Resourcing and renaming are just band-aids, in my opinion.Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • They are starts in the right direction, because after all, band aids help to begin the healing process.  :) Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • They don't do any good if the patient is dying of a sucking chest wound--as is the case with this article. There is no way to fix it, because the entire idea behind the article is flawed. The best that can be said of it is that some of the material might be salvaged, Igor-like, for use elsewhere. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent)That actually raises an interesting question. Per the policy you linked, if you merge an article into another article you need to leave behind a redirect. But what if you're merging pieces of the article into multiple articles? Would you just need to get an admin to do a history merge? TallNapoleon (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on relisting. Getting back to the reason for the relisting, and in the spirit of trying to find some kind of consensus, can anyone who believes the article should be kept find any clear, reliable and verifiable sources that deal with "honorific titles in popular music" that would justify keeping the article, as suggested by Tone? Or can they find them for an alternative that might be used as a rename - such as "nicknames in popular music"? If they can it might be possible to find some kind of workable solution, if not it would seem clear that the article falls short of notability guidelines. If that can be done, we then need to discuss the issue of sources and how they are used, but there seems little point without such a supported rationale. I have looked but cannot find any. Now is your opportunity.--Sabrebd (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems we have two issues here, both of which are problematical, but neither incapable of resolution. The first is notability of the topic itself. When, about 70 years ago, some music journalist dubbed Benny Goodman "The King of Swing", nobody thought to say "there's no such thing". OK, it's arguably a bit of hype, but that's nothing new in the the music industry. I'll remind you that Johann Strauss is adequately sourced as "The Waltz King" as is John Philip Sousa as "The March King"; both of these forms of music qualify as "popular" in its senses of "not classical" and "enjoyed by the masses". Popular music has been around as long as has music itself, and so have journalistic descriptions of it- which is perhaps the problem, and leads me to the second issue, that of reliable sourcing. I think we should leave record company hype out of it, as should we eschew self-published claims, and those of minor sources whose authority on these topics is debatable. If you look at List of events named massacres, the criteria for inclusion are set out quite clearly as to avoid dispute. In the current case, we cannot always rely on inexperienced editors to understand notability or verifiability, and that has been a major problem with this article - editors adding or removing content according to personal preferences. The solution to both issues is to insist on reliable sources- but some genres of music have their specialist publications which are regarded as reliable in their own scope, but not otherwise. A cull of poorly-sourced entries would be a good start, but it seems plain that this list is as valid as many others; resistance to fancruft would be appreciated, but I don't see any of those supporting deletion having actually weighed in to maintain what is obviously a difficult article. Perhaps, we should delete Barack Obama on the basis that it's "too difficult to maintain". As for Sabrebd's above comments, some "list" articles arise from commonality that is not necessarily spelt out in one source, and it is not original research to create such articles, when the title sets out what the list comprises. After that, it's an issue of inclusion/non-inclusion, and that depends on tight specification of the inclusion criteria. Rodhullandemu 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment(s) Forgive me for snipping your previous edit, Rodhullandemu, and before I proceed to do so, I want to thank you for your cool-headed, rational approach to the debate. I disagree with you, but respectfully.
"When, about 70 years ago, some music journalist dubbed Benny Goodman "The King of Swing", nobody thought to say "there's no such thing". OK, it's arguably a bit of hype, but that's nothing new in the the music industry."
Yes, but the music journalist of 70 years ago wasn't writing an encyclopedia entry at the time. Many of the editors of the article at issue appear to be.
""I'll remind you that Johann Strauss is adequately sourced as "The Waltz King" as is John Philip Sousa as "The March King"; both of these forms of music qualify as "popular" in its senses of "not classical" and "enjoyed by the masses"."
Adequate sourcing is a great boon to the verisimilitude of the appellations bestowed on both artists. Many of the artists on the list lack precisely this adequate sourcing. I would argue that most of them do, but we are free to disagree on that point, if either of us, or any among us, desire to. In either case, a list whose entries are justified by a single, misused source is not useful.
"Popular music has been around as long as has music itself, and so have journalistic descriptions of it- which is perhaps the problem, and leads me to the second issue, that of reliable sourcing. I think we should leave record company hype out of it, as should we eschew self-published claims, and those of minor sources whose authority on these topics is debatable."
You and I are in agreement here, though the question of what construes a minor source is an issue, especially, it seems to me, when it comes to music.
"....In the current case, we cannot always rely on inexperienced editors to understand notability or verifiability, and that has been a major problem with this article - editors adding or removing content according to personal preferences."
I can't speak to innocence vs. experience, but yes, eagerness to add to the list has led editors to add artists based on very thin source material, and to justify it using the same. The Mirror stating that Freddie Mercury was voted by fans to be their favorite "rock god" translating to Freddie Mercury appearing on the list as "The God of Rock" as an appellation may or may not have anything to do with editors' feelings about Freddie Mercury, but it is inaccurate, and only one of many examples within this article of original research leading to misinformation.
"...insist on reliable sources- but some genres of music have their specialist publications which are regarded as reliable in their own scope, but not otherwise."
I agree with you 100%. The Wall Street Journal is not where I go to learn about my favorite, heavy metal, twee, or electronica group. Other sources specialize in that sort of thing, and I would go to them as a source of information. Underground music especially gets, by its very nature, coverage only in underground press. This does not forgive digging through said press on a particular artist for ties of "queen" and "bebop," and claiming that it is therefore a moniker for said artist.
"A cull of poorly-sourced entries would be a good start, but it seems plain that this list is as valid as many others; resistance to fancruft would be appreciated, but I don't see any of those supporting deletion having actually weighed in to maintain what is obviously a difficult article."
I tried starting an edit containing only entries whose sources, and interpretations of same, were valid, and before I'd gotten to Rick Davies, I'd deleted everything except Little Richard. None, in my opinion, of the sources up to that point confirmed the moniker listed in an authoritative way. I also question what purpose the list would serve once it was completed, assuming it ever was.
"Perhaps, we should delete Barack Obama on the basis that it's "too difficult to maintain"."
Barack Obama does indeed make for a difficult article, but he is also a recognized historical figure, with thousands of media sources about him. That Kira (a made up name) was called by one newspaper "a winsome princess of psychedelia" (also made up) is also worth listing as "The Princess of Psychedelia," based on the in interpretation of an editor who meant well, but was eager to get something in (or for whatever reason the edit was made), is an entirely different thing. This particular article does not, in my opinion, achieve this goal.
  • Comment(s) Forgive me for snipping your previous edit, and before I proceed to do so, I want to thank you for your cool-headed, rational approach to the debate. I disagree with you, but respectfully.

When, about 70 years ago, some music journalist dubbed Benny Goodman "The King of Swing", nobody thought to say "there's no such thing". OK, it's arguably a bit of hype, but that's nothing new in the the music industry.

Yes, but the music journalist of 70 years ago wasn't writing an encyclopedia entry at the time. Many of the editors of the article at issue appear to be.

I'll remind you that Johann Strauss is adequately sourced as "The Waltz King" as is John Philip Sousa as "The March King"; both of these forms of music qualify as "popular" in its senses of "not classical" and "enjoyed by the masses".

Adequate sourcing is a great boon to the verisimilitude of the appellations bestowed on both artists. Many of the artists on the list lack precisely this adequate sourcing. I would argue that most of them do, but we are free to disagree on that point, if either of us, or any among us, desire to. In either case, a list whose entries are justified by a single, misused source is not useful.

Popular music has been around as long as has music itself, and so have journalistic descriptions of it- which is perhaps the problem, and leads me to the second issue, that of reliable sourcing. I think we should leave record company hype out of it, as should we eschew self-published claims, and those of minor sources whose authority on these topics is debatable.

You and I are in agreement here, though the question of what construes a minor source is an issue, especially, it seems to me, when it comes to music.

"....In the current case, we cannot always rely on inexperienced editors to understand notability or verifiability, and that has been a major problem with this article - editors adding or removing content according to personal preferences."

I can't speak to innocence vs. experience, but yes, eagerness to add to the list has led editors to add artists based on very thin source material, and to justify it using the same. The Mirror stating that Freddie Mercury was voted by fans to be their favorite "rock god" translating to Freddie Mercury appearing on the list as "The God of Rock" as an appellation may or may not have anything to do with editors' feelings about Freddie Mercury, but it is inaccurate, and only one of many examples within this article of original research leading to misinformation.

...insist on reliable sources- but some genres of music have their specialist publications which are regarded as reliable in their own scope, but not otherwise.

I agree with you 100%. The Wall Street Journal is not where I go to learn about my favorite, heavy metal, twee, or electronica group. Other sources specialize in that sort of thing, and I would go to them as a source of information. Underground music especially gets, by its very nature, coverage only in underground press. This does not forgive digging through said press on a particular artist for ties of "queen" and "bebop," and claiming that it is therefore a moniker for said artist.

A cull of poorly-sourced entries would be a good start, but it seems plain that this list is as valid as many others; resistance to fancruft would be appreciated, but I don't see any of those supporting deletion having actually weighed in to maintain what is obviously a difficult article.

I tried starting an edit containing only entries whose sources, and interpretations of same, were valid, and before I'd gotten to Rick Davies, I'd deleted everything except Little Richard. None, in my opinion, of the sources up to that point confirmed the moniker listed in an authoritative way. I also question what purpose the list would serve once it was completed, assuming it ever was.


"Perhaps, we should delete Barack Obama on the basis that it's "too difficult to maintain".

Barack Obama does indeed make for a difficult article, but he is also a recognized historical figure, with thousands of media sources about him. That Kira (a made up name) was called by one newspaper "a winsome princess of psychedelia" (also made up) is also worth listing as "The Princess of Psychedelia," based on the in interpretation of an editor who meant well, but was eager to get something in (or for whatever reason the edit was made), is an entirely different thing.
As for Sabrebd's above comments, some "list" articles arise from commonality that is not necessarily spelt out in one source, and it is not original research to create such articles, when the title sets out what the list comprises. After that, it's an issue of inclusion/non-inclusion, and that depends on tight specification of the inclusion criteria.
This particular article does not, in my opinion, achieve this goal. It has been argued above that the inclusion criteria are not tightly specified, and that even where they are laid out, they are not met within the specifications of the article as it exists. It is also my opinion that, when all entries that do meet the notability, reliability of source, and avoidance of original research guidelines are deleted, a very short list will be left, and it would more worthwhile to incorporate the "honorific titles" into the articles to which they pertain, if the information does not already exist there. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)talk) 00:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rodhullandmeu is right that no one thought "there is no such thing!" when the "King of Swing" was coined. However, neither did anyone say "gee I wonder what other royal-sounding nicknames have been applied to other musicians?" and then proceeded to poke through the library gathering twigs and berries until she had enough for a pamphlet on the subject. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's an inescapable consequence of having such an article as this, and it's easy to Google "King/Queen of X" for your favourite artist; but the acid test is whether you can turn up reliable sources. The Talk page archives show numerous proposals which have been rejected for lack of such sources. However, that doesn't mean that research should not occur. "Queen of Folk Music" is a case in point- while researching this for Sandy Denny, I came across Vinjamuri Anasuya Devi, then a redlink but who now has an article- not a great article, but adequate. Is that enough "twigs and berries" for you? Rodhullandemu 00:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't see any of those supporting deletion having actually weighed in to maintain what is obviously a difficult article." -- I have, both in direct edits and on the talk page; it rapidly became obvious there was no saving it. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To you, perhaps. However, I see no benefit in discussing with an editor who feels it necessary to comment to every other editor opposed to the nomination; that strikes me as "not waving, but drowning", and a little desperate. I'm happy to abide by the decision of the closing admin (poor guy!), but my feeling as an admin myself is that no outcome is going to be acceptable. Meanwhile, I've set out my stall, and you may take it or leave it. Rodhullandemu 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find that comment a little rude, and fail to see how participating in a deletion discussion or supporting the deletion of an article on clearly laid out grounds constitutes "NPOV." Exploding Boy (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I can't expect every nominator of an article to predict counter-arguments in advance, although given the previous history of this article, that might have been expected. Forgive me if I appear to accuse you of badgering those who disagree with you. Rodhullandemu 00:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should disclose that I closed a previous AfD myself as "speedy keep" because (i) the article was relatively new, and sourced, (ii) the nomination followed hard on the heels of a previous Afd which had also been closed as "keep", and (iii) that nomination introduced nothing new to the debate; in short, it was premature and poorly-argued. Rodhullandemu 23:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not my field, but it seems a [perfectly adequate list by the usual standards. I am a little concerned about the need to show that the title is used regularly about someone, not merely once in passing, but this is a question for the talk page for individual entries. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the article has a large number of sources, many of them are insufficient to support the claims they are associated with. The problem is that if one is trying to establish that a musician is known by one of these honorific titles, a single citation is not enough to do that. A phrase isn't the musician's nickname unless the musician is referred to by that phrase numerous times, not just once or a few times. And this article doesn't differentiate between titles supported by long-standing usage and titles applied by a single writer in a single article. To put it another way, if you saw a headline that said, "Former employees reveal King of Pop's secrets," you probably would know who it was about. "Former employees reveal King of Rap's secrets," you wouldn't. "Queen of Soul announces 20-city tour," you probably would know who it was about. "Queen of Pop announces 20-city tour," you wouldn't. That's because "King of Pop" and "Queen of Soul" are indeed titles associated with particular artists, and "King of Rap" and "Queen of Pop" aren't so associated. I don't know if the supporters of this article plan to narrow down the list accordingly. And if the article is meant to include all honorific titles for popular musicians, without differentiating between the common nicknames and the one-time references, then it's indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of the content in this article may be questionable, but it stands to reason that there are a significant number of notable honourific titles in popular music, such that a list article is justified. Clean up specific issues with specific content, and you are left with a high quality and well sourced article about a notable topic. --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90's very insightful points about the list being ill-conceived and the criteria ill-defined. Sssoul (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-topic. I contend that the topic of "honorific titles in popular music" does not exist. It is simply not a topic that is treated as the subject of substantive reliable sources as a topic in its own right and would be deleted under Notability and parts of No Original Research. Given this, a list such as this amounts to original synthesis of various bits of trivia. As mentioned above somewhere, were a category to exist under this title it would be immediately deleted. The selection criterion is not a meaningful categorisations of the subject matter at hand. Nicknames/honorific titles, especially used as indiscriminately as in this article ("title of a magazine article? oh yes, let's put it in!"), is not a meaningful way to group musicians together. Regards. Zunaid 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Of course the topic doesn't exist and I really don't see why it has to. Neither did many topics in their origin, such as the theory of evolution or penicillin, until someone decided to put his/her observations down on paper and develop 'em from there. This is a mere list and not a category, and as such, like any list it brings together items from different sources (which in the case of Wikipedia, clearly need to be reliable & verifiable). It doesn't need to be deleted because it doesn't actually put forward any original research or attempt to be anything but a list (as far as I know, 'cos its content leaves me cold) which I can see has great potential to do waht lists are meant to do. By the way, I'm intrigued as to how one can find a meaningful way to group musicians together - ask any musician and the first thing they stress is that they don't want to be stuck under this or that label, a label which has been stuck on 'em by so-called music experts. But don't get me started on that one.., Regards, --Technopat (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Neither did many topics in their origin, such as the theory of evolution or penicillin, until someone decided to put his/her observations down on paper and develop 'em from there."—So you're suggesting that we develop the study of "honorific titles in pop music" right here on Wikipedia? indopug (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not interpret my words - I suggested nothing of the sort. If you had asked me: "Do you suggest...", the answer would obviously be "no". But a mere list, suitably sourced, has its use. Wikipedia has several advantages over traditional reference works, one of which is the wide-ranging number of topics, articles and lists to be found here. As such, it is the first choice for sourcing contemporary topics that are unlikely to be found elsewhere. If I need to look something up on the Byzantine empire at the end of the 5th century, I'd go to my Britannica (and then probably come to Wikipedia to see if there were any more-up-to-date sources listed as references.) If I want to know where/when/why the honorific title "The King of Pop" came about, Wikipedia is the place. And before you interpret my words, that has nothing to do with trivia. It's called "curiosity" - one of our greatest attributes as humans... and the driver of knowledge. Wikipedia rules!--Technopat (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think some of the sources need to be resourced and some of the sections like "Queen of Pop" and others I would say they be narrowed down to more notable artist called by that title. Thoughtfulnes (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I love music and It's history and I always find myself looking through the page and seeing why these people are called King or queen. Thats why i think that this page is notable because I beleive people actually look this stuff up. Its well sourced though some sources lead back to a wiki page and need to be fixed. I agree what Rodhullandemu 00:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC) said and I believe that out of the 3 million plus articles there are several list the can be compared to this one so its certainly not the first and it won't be the last. KingofSuperheros (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except the list doesn't say why they're called king or queen, and neither do the sources. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to strong argument of the Kingofsuperheros. People want to know about this stuff. Its sourced and these titles are apart of the music society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.32.249 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ILIKEIT. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:I just don't like it - "Human knowledge is what Wikipedia covers, and its extent is determined by the world at large, as documented and recorded in reliable sources, not by us as editors choosing what we personally consider to be popular. Again, we base our arguments upon what sources say, not upon our personal likes and dislikes." (My bold). --Technopat (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zunaid. My thoughts exactly. ThemFromSpace 16:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, because...
    • Disruptive renomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination) closed as "keep" after even the nominator withdrew and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorific titles in popular music (3rd nomination) closed as "speedy keep". Twice already the consensus was near unaimous in keeping the article and while this current discussion would probably most accurately be closed as "no consensus" although "keep" would be a reasonable close based on strength of arguments, this annoying repeated nominations of previously kept articles has to stop already. Barring new evidence comes to life of a copy vio or libelous information that has to be deleted for legal reasons, our community has already twice now spoken and they find this article helpful and relevant so those who do not like it and can do little more than the usual WP:PERNOM or WP:JNN style of non-arguments should just help improve whatever articles they do care about.
Only two of the past nominations can be considered disruptive nominationsl they were speedy kept because a new AFD was posted quickly after the last one closed. In the case of this AFD, a lot of time has passed. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this nomination clearly does not meet the criteria for WP:SK. There is no edit war in the article and given the issues raised on the talk page and here, it clearly is not vandalism. The discussion has been actively going for ten days and has been relisted, and now you call for speedy keep? I see little point in simply restating the same arguments, which have been reasonably (even if you do not agree with them) refuted by a number of editors, indicating a valid debate. You now point to the possibility of renaming, which has been raised before, but largely ignored in these discussions. I believe this is the most likely possibility of gaining some kind of consensus (in fact it is the only one raised here so far), but it is necessary to take on board the issues I pointed to when this was first raised by EEIMV, if you want to convince many of those arguing for deletion to adopt this solution. To save time I will repeat them:

  • First, the article might get even larger as that would imply that every jazz and rap singer (to give just two examples) could be in the list (e.g. Shawn Carter = Jazzy = JayZ = Jiggy). How would a definition avoid this?
  • Second, would such a list would be any closer to reaching WP:N, particularly "Significant coverage: ... that sources address the subject directly in detail". As I said after relisting, there is an opportunity for editors to produce clear and verifiable sources for either "honorific titles in popular music", or for something like "nicknames in popular music".

Since this offers the possibility of consensus it would be helpful to address these issues directly so that we can all try to take the debate forward.--Sabrebd (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I object to the characterization of this as a "disruptive nomination," and I take it as an inappropriate comment. The rationale for this fourth nomination has been thoroughly discussed, including in the nomination itself. Second, A. Nobody has thus far declined to respond to a request for explanation with regard to this addition of a template to the article talk page claiming that the list "now serves to provide attribution for content in Mao Amin and must not be deleted so long as Mao Amin exists," a transparent attempt to prevent deletion which in fact provides no attribution at all. I would still like to see an explanation of that, as I've never seen this template before and Wikipedia articles (much less lists) cannot be used as sources for other articles anyway. I appreciate that A. Nobody feels as strongly that this list should be kept as I feel it should be deleted, but this latest post still does not address all the rationales for deletion or even the rebuttals to his six numbered points, given further above. Additionally, it's clear that there is nowhere near unanimous consensus to keep. A quick count shows that out of 33 who chose to put either "keep" or "delete" in their comments, only 3 more users support keeping than support deletion. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have commented on that talk page and while this is not a vote, the majority for keeping if anything reflects a lack of consensus to delete and even some of those saying to delete do not seem that closed-minded to some kind of improvements/rethinking that would address their concerns. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I posted my comment above, yes you have, and thanks for that. However, Mao Amin is a stand-alone article with external sources. Nothing was "transported" from List of honorific titles in popular music to the Mao article, and while there are mutual links (to Mao Amin from the List of honorific titles in popular music article and to List of honorific titles in popular music from the Mao Amin article), the mere fact that articles link to one another does not prevent them from being deleted. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
from this article, I used "Dajieda ("Big Sister") Mao Amin China [145]" which went to the other article when first started (see and compare [1]), i.e. when I started that article, I first use the information from this list as it seemed strange that she would be redlinked, which got me interested in the subject and later resulted in the expansion of her article. Thus, this article cannot be deleted. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the so-called problems with this article could not have been addressed through regular editing whether by boldly renaming or merging or using talk pages for discussion. Deletion is an extreme last resort and since two Afds already resulted in resounding and overwhelming keeps and as even this one reflects no strong consensus for deletion, it is clear that this was not the approach to take. In any event, to avoid an overly long single article, we could have separate genre specific lists: List of nicknames of rappers, List of nicknames of country music singers, List of musicians referred to with royal titles, etc. and in these lists only include such nicknames as are verified in reliable sources and perhaps indicate in these articles that in order to be included, those listed must be verified in at last two reliable sources. Regarding point two, I generally find "notability" to be one of the most morally reprehensible things ever concocted on Wikipedia as it is just the kind of elitist and subjective mumbo jumbo that Enlightened encyclopedists rail against and indeed goes against the whole spirit of a paperless encyclopedia edited by anyone. "In truth, the aim of an encyclopédie is to collect all knowledge scattered over the face of the earth...All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings," wrote Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia. But even with that point, the concept of nicknames in music and as laid out even in this current list has indeed been the subject of published books. See for example this page of a book on "Sobriquets and nicknames" that lists various "Father of" style nicknames and with regards even to music. Indeed, we can use nickname dictionaries for the most relevant ones. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure your views on how Wikipedia should follow the tenants of late eighteenth-century positivism would be fascinating, but this is really not the place for such a discussion, we should probably deal with the guidelines as they stand at the moment. The link you supply for the source unfortunately just links to the Google book overview page, so it is difficult to see exactly what it says at the moment. However, I do not think that many people who feel that the article as it stands should be deleted will feel it could be supported by a book published before modern popular music came into being. I think we are looking for some kind of current or continuous discussion with direct relevance. There is no great hurry over this, I am sure if success looks likely the debate could be prolonged again.
I am really not sure about your point over nicknames dictionaries. Most of the ones you give a Google search for are not available for access, but I have a few here and they all deal with the sort of nicknames that are shortenings of forenames or relate to physical attributes, I do not see anything on giving names to famous people or musicians. The problem will not be proving that nicknames exist, but that there are accessible and verifiable sources dealing with how they are given to musicians.
The issue over avoiding whole series of multiple names does not seem to be addressed in your answer, unless that is your point over the new proposal for several articles. I suspect that replacing one proliferating article with several will not seem like a great solution to those arguing for deletion, but lets put it on the table and see what editors think. Personally I think we are more likely to find sources dealing with the kind of topics you suggest than honorific titles or nicknames in popular music in general.
We have already discussed the issue of how sources are to be used in the article, and even if there is not a clear consensus over keep/delete, I think we may well gain a consensus for a more rigorous use of sources, but lets just put that aside as it is irrelevant until we know what we are doing.

So in summary we have the following proposals (that do not involve simply delete or keep - on which, obviously, editors can still give their opinions):

  • a, Provide clear and verifiable sources that deal with "honorific titles in popular music".
  • b, rename, to something like "nicknames in popular music", coming up with some clear and verifiable sources and a workable rationale.
  • c, divide the article up into a series of smaller articles for various genres. Again, surely we need to be clear about sources and rationale.

To state the obvious, this is not a 2 or 3 way debate and it would be helpful if other editors on both sides were to join in.--Sabrebd (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well pointed out. This is becoming more contentious than strictly necessary, perhaps because of some polarisation of views, as there seems to be little middle ground. However, I would like to address that. It is beyond doubt that some reigning European monarchs were in their time given epithets such as e.g. Charles the Fat, Charles the Bald and Ivan the Terrible, but I wouldn't describe these as "honorifics"; yet if there were a list of these nicknames here, I doubt there would be much resistance to that, since the alternative would be disambiguation pages which would not give an overview- however, such a list, separated from the redirects, would not be indiscriminate, since it would be tightly-specified, as I pointed out earlier, and give a reader something that a redirect or individual article would not, which is an overview of disrespectful terms for heads of state. Why then should the converse, not be equally valid? But monarchs traditionally adopt (usually themselves) honorifics such as "Defender of the Faith"- in the case in point, we have external sources, in specialist fields (subject to pruning of unreliable and trivial sources) assessing artists' contributions to their field at the time. The topic may suffer from recentism, as I've already pointed out, but many of the titles in the article are of credible longevity, and go beyond being mere "nicknames", which are two a penny. Attention to sourcing and perhaps adopting a "two-source", "not merely transitory" approach would be a start. I I reiterate: I don't think this topic is beyond rescue. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could re-state the portions of their arguments that I found compelling; but I don't think its necc. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though they have been discounted and challenged? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zunaid sums it up nicely. The quality of the sources for individual factoids is irrelevant if there are no sources establishing the notability of the topic as a whole. Yilloslime TC 21:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We still cannot delete merged content per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're referring to the Mao Amin article, there is no merged content. Similarly, original sourced articles from which some content has been moved to or merged with another article can be and often are deleted. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • from this article, I used "Dajieda ("Big Sister") Mao Amin China [145]" which went to the other article when first started (see and compare [2]), i.e. when I started that article, I first use the information from this list as it seemed strange that she would be redlinked, which got me interested in the subject and later resulted in the expansion of her article. Thus, this article cannot be deleted. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • A history merge solves this problem, so the article is still eminently deletable. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no valid reason to delete the article though. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Since practically everybody (including some of the "keep" !voters) agrees that "honorifics in pop music" is a non-subject, the matter ends there. By compiling—however objectively and well-sourced—a list of these "honorifics", we are committing irreconcilable original research. indopug (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a call for renaming or merging, but not deleting. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaborate please. What should we rename this non-subject to? What article can we merge with? indopug (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few options have been proposed above (I am reluctant to repeat myself) for either a general rename or a split into genre specific articles and as for merging as even a number of the deletes say, the items cited in reliable sources can at worst be added to the actual articles on these musicians. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete made-up non-subject based upon original research what consists a honorific (and no I don't need a lecture today A.Nobody,so don't bother). --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything on the list is cited and in theory everything on Wikipedia is our original research of primary and secondary sources, i.e. you have not provided a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 08:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, your use of Chewbacca defense is admirable. indopug (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THanks! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Simply suggesting that renaming the article, so it can better benefit the subjects, is not the best concrete evidence for deletion. Retitling the article can be a start and like someone said before changing some sources would be nice too. As it stands it needs help but all wiki pages are on a consistent work in progress. The fact the page has survived three Afd's shows there are people who are willing to make it better. The Source of Wiki Power (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs some cleanup, but has useful information.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ive visited that page a few times and its just full of utter rubbish really! Yes there are sources for each entry but some of those entries are ridiculous. So unless they sort the page out completly making it viable and have at least 5 sources for each entry then I think it should be deleted rigth away. Wneedham02 (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can't be deleted as some of it has been merged. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As has been explained to you already, this is not the case. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And as has been explained back, it is per our guidelines. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Deletion policy states that merging and deletion "may potentially cause licensing problems." But even if it were the case that content from this list had been merged, which it is not, the source article can still be deleted per the policy because (in addition to several other methods of preserving the information) the history can be merged with the target content. I trust that clears up the confusion. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I started an article first using information from this list, i.e. merged it. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After 11 days of discussion it must surely now be clear that there is not going to be a clear consensus either way on this. The article certainly has issues in terms of criteria for inclusion (what constitutes an honorific title and do we even want to keep it at that title anyway) and sourcing (how widely should usage of the title be demonstrated in reliable sources in order to be included), and I would suggest that it would be more constructive to address these on the article's talk page than continuing this discussion.--Michig (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, some of the article's editors don't seem to hear the nature of the problems that need fixing, some of which are core to the entire article. --Bejnar (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep informative and well sourced. I learned a lot from reading it and was genuinely interested in the subject matter. --Simple Bob (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: in the interest of acheiving some kind of consensus I've left neutral requests for more input on this discussion at the Administrator's noticeboard and the Content noticeboard.Exploding Boy (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)</small.> [reply]

  • Comment I don't have a very strong, fully-informed opinion on whether to keep or delete, but I've been asked to comment here because I've been involved in editing the article, so I will say that in perusing it and this Talk Page, I agree that these seem more like nicknames than honorifics. But more importantly, I don't think that you can establish these statuses (stati?) by mere one source, even if it's a good one, because at issue is whether these nicknames have been adopted by the entertainment industry widely. Michael Jackson's title as the "King of Pop" has been adopted widely, not only by the music industry, but is referenced in satire (standup comedian Richard Jeni's show A Good Little Catholic Boy, for example). By contrast, when Lauren Gitlin of Rolling Stone refers to Ciara as the "Princess of Crunk", the question needs to be addressed as to whether this is simply a bit of half-serious praise or POV by the writer of one article, or a moniker that's penetrated the public consciousness like "King of Pop" or "Queen of Soul" have. This is an important point, and I have a feeling that lots of these titles would not stand up to that latter standard. Going through each one of these titles to assess this would be an excruciating task, but it is necessary, IMO, and the Delete/Keep debate should be predicated on that very point. Hope this helps. Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two problems need to be addressed to justify keeping the article. A) the opening sentence says "Honorific titles are often conferred upon popular music artists for their contributions to the field." Conferred? By who?! These are neither titles nor honorifics. An alternative is hard to find, but perhaps "honorific nicknames" will do. Article needs renaming. B) All sources should be removed from the article - everything should be properly sourced in the artist articles (and properly sourced means indicating widespread usage). As part of indicating widespread usage, titles should only be included where editors agree to have a redirect for that title to a particular artist (and the title is also mentioned in the lede of the artist article). Rd232 talk 17:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only thing this article needs is a real good cleaning out. Too many poor cites, too many inferences used for references. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2009 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_honorific_titles_in_popular_music_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138013307"