Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music sampling in Hong Kong

Add links
Source: 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 no consensus. Sandstein 15:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music sampling in Hong Kong

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a strange one - a very incoherent and confusing article. As Sergecross73 put it in a prior discussion, "It's hard to follow what exactly is being documented here, or it's real scope." Nominating to get some more eyes on it, because I have a feeling it shouldn't exist at all. Popcornfud (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - poorly, confusingly written article beyond redemption.
    WP:TNT. Sergecross73 msg me 23:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Regarding
    WP:TNT as although the article can be improved, the article content when viewed through the lens of "secondary creations" or "derivative works" makes sense to me and accurately reflects the sources I reviewed.

    Cunard (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I always struggle with these sorts of arguments - if we change the title and rewrite it to newly found sources, are we really "keeping" it at that point? It sounds like you're proposing writing a whole different article, that will likely never actually be written judging on the low traffic/low interest in editing this mess of an article has received these last five years. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article was moved in 2017 from the correct title
music sampling in Hong Kong. I am suggesting reverting this page move and using secondary creations in Hong Kong (the literal translation) or derivative works in Hong Kong (the other translation commonly used by reliable sources) instead.

I am not "proposing writing a whole different article". The current article is satisfactory after I removed the incorrect mention of "music sampling" (which was added as part of the incorrect page move). I added information about how the topic refers to "secondary creations" and "derivative works". The article can be improved as well as expanded with the sources I found. But it does not need to be rewritten to be retained in mainspace since the article accurately reflects the sources. It accurately discusses the history of the secondary creations of music in Hong Kong and the legality of the secondary creations. Here are two existing sources in the article:

  1. "民間改詞熱". Metropop. Retrieved 2016-03-24.
  2. "二次創作「有層次」得防着點？". 星島日報. Retrieved 2016-03-24.
The first source from Metropop is one of the sources I've listed in this AfD. The Wikipedia article relies heavily on the Metropop article to discuss the history of secondary creations of music in Hong Kong. The second source, a commentary on secondary creations, discuss the same topic as the sources I have presented.

Cunard (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand the page's history, but a read through of the article is still disjointed and confusing. It's like trying to document the history of a country through 10 unrelated sentences or something - it fails to convey any real message. And it's a very short article on a rather bizarre cross-section to begin with. It needs to be merged or draftified or something. Its an awful read and not likely to be improved any time soon considering the subject matter and the fact that multiple experienced editors from the music Wikiproject didn't even really know where to begin... Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I still think this article is a long way from making any sense. The subject itself might be notable, but it's still not obvious from the article what the subject exactly is. Popcornfud (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article documents the history of secondary creations (derivative works) in Hong Kong with respect to music. I reviewed the article's sources and found additional sources that discuss secondary creations. The article's topic is very clear to me. The "History" section discusses secondary creations in the 1960s (songs were derived from Chinese opera, Disney musicals, and Western and Japanese songs), 1980s and 1990s (variety shows made use of secondary creations, while the comedians Andrew Lam and Eric Tsang rewrote song lyrics for comedic effect), and after 2000 (netizens began making secondary creations of songs to parody contemporary political and social issues).

    The "Controversy" section discusses how the proposed law Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 could have affected the legality of secondary creations. Some commentators believed the proposed law would have restricted the freedom of expression and creation with respect to secondary creations. But the article notes that a secondary creation that is considered a parody, satire, pastiche, caricature or commentary, would not be considered copyright infringement under the bill. The "Effects" section further discusses the copyright implications of secondary creations.

    The article can be copyedited and expanded but the article's topic and presentation are very clear to me.

    Cunard (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 08:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per
    WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved and copyedited by Cunard. Thanks for your great work. VocalIndia (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2021 (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/Music_sampling_in_Hong_Kong&oldid=1220779359"