Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music group naming

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music group naming

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

I believe the whole article is

original research

. Since its creation, it has never been supported by any references.

I found the article very interesting. It got me thinking about music group naming, and the phenomenon as a subject in itself. I think there are many interesting ideas there.

I just don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. There's no transparent source beyond the editor that created the article.

Willondon (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article, and though there have been other contributions I think the basic scope of its discussion and structure are still what I had written. I guess I can't say that I *definitively* believe it is not OR, since I am not deeply familiar with the nuances of the policy (though I have read it, I don't have a lot of experience reading discussions about it and seeing how it gets applied in cases which are not clear cut).

My sense is that maybe the article skirts around the edges of the policy and this has drawn some (obviously well intentioned) criticism and concern. What I had in mind was an article that essentially was "compiling facts and information" (term from

Wikipedia:NOR

does prohibit, "any analysis or synthesis" but that is only of "material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". However the music group naming article isn't trying to advance a "position", at least not that I can see nor intended. The word position seems to imply a subjective interpretation. But I do not think that identifying similarities among music group names was a "position" since it seems more like a direct observation - i.e. not subjective at all. It seems to me that how we interpret this point may be the crux of the issue.

With regards to sources - what I understood from Wikipedia:Verifiability was that statements in articles need to be attributable, but do not necessarily require actual attribution. So for instance, the article uses the name "The Beatles" at one point. It did not seem necessary to cite a source to show that such a band existed, since it is common knowledge. (Though I guess with some of the less well-known bands mentioned that could certainly be a problem.) However I don't think the lack of attribution even if it is required actually means the article constitutes original research, the issue at hand. It just means citations need to be added to substantiate the example names put forth.

So as regards deletion, I guess ideally I'd like to hear some specific discussion about how it violates OR in ways that can't be fixed. And if there are lots of problems like that - well then so be it! At least I/we learn something. But if not, or if they can be fixed, then maybe we can save the article.

dhollm (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument that the article is

original research

boils down to "there are no sources". I'm a novice in contributing to Wikipedia's administrative efforts, so I've only finished a first-time read of help on deleting an article, and related issues. To address your thoughts point-by-point:

I don't see the article as a compilation of facts and information as described in

WP:NOTOR

, which explains that "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established. Those sources must then be combined to produce a cohesive, comprehensive, and coherent article." The rationale for deletion is that there are no sources.

I agree that no position is advanced, reading

WP:NOR

, which says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." But again, there are no sources to inappropriately synthesize.

The article draws on easily verified facts, like the existence of a band named "The Beatles". But it also provides a second layer of analysis without support. It's there that I think references are needed. As Arms Jones put it "a reference explaining the reason why the band choose its name, including why it has a definite form."

My argument that the article is original research boils down to "there are no sources". So is it

WP:OR

in a way that's unfixable?

Providing sources would be a way to fix the article. I'm not optimistic about that, so someone else will have to take the lead there. I also found Wikipedia:Article Incubator in my skimming. It's an interesting article, but if it's to survive, I think it will have to be somewhere outside Wikipedia. Willondon (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find this text interesting, but it is not backed with sources. You don't have to have a reference to the fact that there was a band named the Beatles, since that acctually is common knowledge, but in an article with this scope you do have to have a reference explaining the reason why the band choose its name, including why it has a definite form. Arms Jones (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem with this article is not any doubt that the artists mentioned actually exist; they do exist or have existed. The problem with this article is that it contains various statements about band naming practices, some of which are questionable in terms of their accuracy, and not one of which is sourced. It appears to be completely
original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:27, 15 December 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.