Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop ballad

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 redirect to ballad (music). MBisanz talk 02:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pop ballad[edit]

Pop ballad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article contains nothing but original research. There is absolutely no context or mention of the article's importance, and no sources whatsoever. Also, there is little information in the article, except for a long, useless, subjective list. There is also no hope for it. We already have a page for ballad. Users can decipher what a pop ballad is by reading and joining both terms. Orane (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but remove the list. This is a notable topic per Google news search [1] and e.g. [2], [3], [4] but not a very good article on it. JJL (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a slight discrepancy, though. "Pop ballad" isn't a genre of music. The term pop ballad comes from joining two separate terms: pop music and ballad (a slow song with a refrain and particular metre). There is no need to combine the two terms and create an article for it. For example, we have rock ballad, R&B ballad, country ballad and other variants. People can join the terms themselves: a pop ballad is a slow song in the pop genre, a rock ballad is a ballad in the rock genre, etc. Orane (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Orane's nom and comment. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unremarkable amalgamation of the terms Pop and ballad. There's nothing independent about the topic, and no need for such an indiscriminate list of so called bands. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Off topic. What the article have is a list of bands and singers that sings pop-ballads, but nobody can really say that a pop-ballad is. Its no useful info included. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or Redirect Encyclopedia Britannica describes a pop ballad as a sentimental song and then has a copy of its article for Ballad; it is essentially treating pop ballad as a redirect for ballad. At the very least we should be doing the same. Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What we're also trying to avoid is the tens and even hundreds of music articles on songs/albums that keep putting "pop ballad" in the genre field. It's actually laughable. A person seeing this thinks of Wikipedia as a joke. A redirect to "ballad" may further encourage the assumption that a ballad is a genre. Orane (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, we're not affiliated with Encyclopedia Britannica. We don't have to do what they do. Orane (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about having to remove Pop ballad as a genre so regularly is interesting. If the page was redirect you would still be able to use the "what links here" function which would allow you to find the cases of misuse relatively easily.
No we don't have to follow Britannica, however we do have to follow reliable sources. I merely picked Britannica as it is a respected tertiary source which, like us, has to decide on the notability of certain clasifications of songs. Here is an extract from the article on Popular music in the Grove Music Online:
In the Western world, including Eastern Europe and Latin America, the quintessential musical vehicle for depicting such relationships ['pure' love etc] is the pop ballad, a transnational genre that rigorously avoids reference to any social contexts or constraints, portraying instead an amorphous, ‘virtual’ world of the emotions. Although neglected by ethnomusicologists, international versions of the pop ballad, from pop Java to the songs of Julio Iglesias, are increasingly pervasive features of world music cultures.
Going from this quote alone I don't really see the issue in describing pop ballad as a genre, however a wider scan of the literature is probably necessary. Overall plenty of evidence that this is notable enough for a redirect and to be honest enough to leave this as an article. Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One quote should not determine whether or not we keep an article. We cannot write an entire article solely from this source. Secondly, to be completely honest, I doubt that reference to "genre" above was talking about genre of music. Since genre is, essentially, a category or style, the article could be talking about the category/style of a song [a slow love song vs. an upbeat dance number etc], rather than the genre of the music. In any case, the most that should be done is to redirect this page to Ballad (music). But "ballad" in the sense of the word, depicts the metre, structure and tone/subject of the songs, regardless of genre. It is not a genre of itself. Orane (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I count three source now: firstly the Encyclopedia Britannica article (I have looked at it again and the whole article is called pop ballad, it does not seem to be a redirect to their article ballad, but vice versa), secondly the relevant sections from the Grove article, and finally an extract from the Oxford English Dictionary which has the first reported usages of the term (put on the talk page).
I accept you point that the meaning of genre in the Grove article may not be in the music genre sense, however ultimately that is a side issue. This is about whether pop ballad is a widely used term in reliable sources; it does not matter whether it is a genre or something else.
A redirect to a section in Ballad (music) with all this information would be fine in my opnion (I am glad that we agree about this). If the section ever got too big it can always be split off into its own article. Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: indiscriminate list, article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- missing the point. The singular topic of "pop ballad" is almost never covered in any of the Google article you mentioned. They mention pop ballad when they describe a song--it's a ballad, and it's a pop song-- but there is no explanation of what a pop ballad is. In any case, as one person stated, the two terms should not be amalgamated. Poor example, but bear with me. It's just like saying "black dog". There are white dogs, fluffy dogs, brown dogs etc. But these are two separate terms: the colour black, and the animal dog. We would never create an article on "brown dog" or "black dog", so why would we create an article for pop ballad, when there are rock ballads, R&B ballads, soul ballads and every other kinds of ballads? If anything, the most we should be doing is merging pop ballad with the ballad article. Regarding the US President example you gave: that's totally different. There is a long history of presidents for a lot of countries, with infinite information. One of the main issues with this article is that it lacks a lot of authoritative sources, and it's not distinguishable. What separates pop ballad from R&B ballad, or country ballad, or soul ballad? Do we need to create articles for these song styles too? Orane (talk) 03:48, 14 January 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/Pop_ballad&oldid=1140262012"