Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sting (percussion)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sting (percussion)[edit]

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

Deprodded as "more than dicdef", but I can't find any sources. I'm getting nothing but false positives no matter what word combos I try, nor do I see how this can be more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the main issue is here. Agree that it's very hard to find online sources, owing to the prominence of several musicians (including some drummers) with the nickname Sting, I guess that's what you mean by false positives, and I'm finding that too, see Talk:Sting (percussion)#PROD. But surely you're not saying that this term is not widely used... have you asked any drummers or comedians? Yes, the article is little more than a dicdef, but it is already a little more, in the sense that the material there goes a little beyond what would be welcome at Wiktionary (compare to wikt:sting). It's a useful stub. Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use a drummer or percussion as a source on Wikipedia though. Word of mouth means nothing here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, it doesn't count as a reliable source, but it should sound a warning that we may be looking in the wrong places for sources, which the false positives indicate too. What they're all telling us is that we need to look further. Andrewa (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment While there are sufficient reliable sources available ([1], [2], [3], etc.) I'm not clear on how this sting differs from Sting (musical phrase) and think merger would make for a stronger single article. I have no strong opinion as to which article should be merged into the other. - Dravecky (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, educational and encyclopedic. Ba doom boom. — Cirt (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rimshot. No sources to indicate the two are substantively different p b p 20:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is at least one redirect and merge needed in this area, but that is not it!
- In the context of percussion (and noting that the disambiguator in the article title here is percussion), a rimshot and a sting are different concepts, related only rather loosely. Our Rimshot article already [4] gives two references, but its see also section Sting (percussion) - an alternate form of rimshot... is confusing and just plain wrong... ~~I'll fix it~~ (fixed). While I have neither of the references given to hand I'm sure they will support the following: The well-established primary meaning of rimshot in the context of percussion is an advanced performance technique, and the word describes a single strike of the stick, see http://www.studydrums.com/rimshots.html for a good description. See http://soundandthefoley.com/2013/04/10/of-stings-and-rimshots/ for the way in which it contrasts to a sting, which refers to a whole phrase used for a particular purpose, not to a single stroke or particular technique. It seems that in the context of comedy such a sting is also sometimes rather confusingly referred to as a rimshot, possibly whether or not a rimshot is actually included (with the rimshot it would be ba-da-pok rather than the more usual ba-da-tish, I've never heard or played ba-da-pok but have often heard and occasionally played a short roll ending with a rimshot brrrr-pok as a very effective sting but less common than the one with the cymbal, and have a personal favourite baba dada pok using two kicks and two toms then the rimshot - needs to be played very fast to work well). And I suppose a rimshot could be used on its own as a sting (pok on its own), but I've never heard it so used and don't imagine it as being terribly effective - IMO any drummer capable of a reliable rimshot is likely to play a more conventional and effective sting than just a single rimshot, most often consisting of more than a single stroke or if a single stroke it would be a cymbal choke (tish) not a rimshot at all (as drummers understand the word). Does that clarify? Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sample of a sting

A sample recording of the performance of a sting.

Problems playing this file? See media help.

Keep per WP:PRESERVE. Why the rush to delete this stub? Perhaps allow time for expansion instead. Ba dump, dump taah. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How much time does it need? The article's been around since 2005. Are you expecting it to magically grow sources overnight? Don't be stupid. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this... in fact this whole discussion since removal of your PROD... would be better at Talk:Sting (percussion)? The article has had some attention in the last few days... even from yourself I see [5] (Thank you! But I'm afraid I have some concern about that particular edit). And it's likely to get more, including from myself, now that the PROD has highlighted your concerns, again see the talk page (which you are yet to edit at all, you didn't even respond there to the PROD challenge, see Talk:Sting (percussion)#PROD). But it would help if you'd answer my question above about exactly what you see as the issue... I'm guessing that now you've abandoned your earlier dicdef claims [6] [7] and are now instead basing your deletion request purely on the lack of sources, is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with rushing straight to AfD after a challenged PROD is that there's little incentive to work on an article about to be deleted anyway. Of course contributors should be encouraged to fix the reasons for the AfD if they can, which makes it particularly important that the reasons for the AfD should be clear. But you don't seem to have conceded either that the article is not a dicdef (certainly no longer, if it ever was) and that the term is in common usage, nor have you put a clear argument for the AfD now that these concerns have been dealt with. I think you should be very careful about calling other people's arguments stupid! Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ye who resorts to Name calling (a cognitive bias) may perhaps be missing the finer points within the overall discussion? Sorry, but, Bah tap tap taaaaaah (again). Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and apologies if I've stooped to it above. It's of course a breach of WP:NPA as well as a dubious argument. The story of the preacher who wrote in the margin of his sermon notes "logic weak at this point, speak a bit more forcefully" makes the same point. Andrewa (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or merge to Sting (musical phrase), which already has a sentence or two about this anyways. Ansh666 21:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See Talk:Sting (percussion)#Related articles. Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a real thing, different from others. If someone in the entertainment industry mentioned it in a book, or it was mentioned in a university level textbook, that'd be a great addition to the article of course. Sort of hard to find do to the common name "sting" having too many search results to go through. Dream Focus 16:55, 20 July 2013 (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.