Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of Cambridge

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 delete. Alex Shih ^Talk 03:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Cambridge[edit]

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

Seems to be largely a page about music acts that have a vague link to Cambridge, advertising for events in Cambridge, and a few bits about locations in Cambridge which already have their own article. Very few reliable sources indicating the notability of any of the content. Marianna251TALK 14:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or List-ify. A few of these are arbitrary trivia, the rest are better served with stand-alone articles. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page. The point of it is to tie together the history of music in Cambridge and include a wide range of different acts and artists. Bearing in mind I was born and have lived in the city for decades, I know what I am talking about. Certainly, some of the acts became famous outside Cambridge but all inclusions grew up or developed/performed musically in Cambridge. Others have always lived here or for most of their adult lives. After criticism from a Wikipedia moderator, I included dozens of citations and fleshed out most of the articles so they are grammatically complete and the content makes sense. Actually, the piece went live without my permission, hence it needed speedily updating to make it presentable. But you guys seem intent on moaning and not-picking, without allowing the updates, in response to your criticisms, to go through. So, please 'approve' then and work positively towards a completed page rather than negatively talking about deleting the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.74.28 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cambridge#Music. It doesn't really hang together as an article. Some of the (sourced/sourceable) content may be appropriately merged to the Cambridge article, which already duplicates some of this. --Michig (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That depends what you mean by 'hang together as an article'. Since the remit is, music of or in Cambridge, it sets out to list all notable musicians and the venues in which they have played, since the two's history Is inseparable. Obviously, it might cross over with an article on Cambridge, or indeed individual acts and venues - this article gives a sense of the city's cultural life - something which is largely overlooked, and which deserves chronicling, beyond the obvious inclusions like Pink Floyd. The article on the rave scene is particularly notable, since the city saw a high degree of activity in that area, during the late 80s and early 90s.

IT is definitely not intended to be advertising - most of this is historical - but if description of venues and the type of music they host, comes across as advertising to some eyes, so be it.

The process being employed by wikipedia to deal with this article is not satisfactory. This person - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marianna251 - is apparently in charge of overseeing the page, but openly admits she is a part-time member of wikipedia and if doesn't reply with 2/3 days, may have 'disappeared'. So I need to know who I can reliably speak to, to get the updates published and the article completed - you are then welcome to 'judge' it. The fact is, it went live without my permission, so your criticisms need to take into account that context. The most constructive thing, is to press ahead now, with updating it and creating a substantial and informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.74.28 (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2017‎

Okay, I'm signed in now. It looks like the title of the article was changed, as far as I know, without my permission, from 'The music scene of Cambridge' to 'The music of Cambridge' - hence the inelegant.name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickstibbs (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General info for Nickstibbs, not part of main discussion. Marianna251TALK 20:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've had a few misconceptions about what's going on here and why, so I'll try to give you a quick explanation:

Nobody is in charge of overseeing any Wikipedia article, just like nobody owns any Wikipedia article. I'm not "in charge of overseeing the page". Nobody is. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which means that I have no more authority over any article than you do, regardless of who created it or who has made the most contributions to it. Similarly, this AfD discussion will not be closed by you or me, but by an uninvolved user, usually an administrator.
I nominated the article for deletion because a) I don't think it meets the notability criteria and b) I'm doubtful about whether it might actually be original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means that it exists to summarise existing bodies of knowledge. It's not here to publish original thought, regardless of their value or veracity.
You are welcome to keep making edits to the article. I took a quick look at the history, and it looks like an automated bot reverted your edits because you added links to Youtube, which triggered the spam filter. Bots and some users can use rollback, which means that they can revert all edits a user has made in sequence to a page. The bot exists to combat vandalism and spamming on Wikipedia, so it doesn't differentiate between edits that triggered its filter and ones that didn't. If you believe this was a mistake, you can go to the history of the page and click the "Undo" button next to the bot's revert, leaving an edit summary to explain why you've undone the bot. Just be careful not to get into an edit war with anyone.

I strongly recommend that you read verifiability policy, the no original research policy, the notability guideline, what Wikipedia is not and the deletion policy. These will help you understand why I nominated your article for deletion, and give you some guidance on what you'd need to do to make the page meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You can also read WP:AFD to understand what's going on with this deletion discussion and what will happen next.

If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page and I'll do my best to help. Hope that helps. (And please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~.) Marianna251TALK 13:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-read my comment and realised that I wasn't clear about something - me nominating your article for deletion has nothing to do with the quality of its content in itself. Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is one of the most influential texts in western philosophy and is an undeniable work of genius, but if Wikipedia had been around in the 1700s and he'd first published it here, I would still have nominated it for deletion because it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

If you have more questions but you're not comfortable asking me, you can make a post at the Teahouse and another editor will do their best to help. Marianna251TALK 13:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom. If there's anything definitively not elsewhere, a partial merger would make sense, but this isn't keepable in and of itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, I suppose we could award points for originality, but therein lies the problem: this is not a major locus of the music world, nor a spot studied by students of popular culture. It is, ultimately, trivia and original research. Which is fine — write a book about it, that might actually make it WP notable. But as things stand now, it is not. Carrite (talk) 02:29, 18 August 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.