Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorific nicknames in popular music

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. Consensus is clear. As for the numerous suggestions to rework, please do have at it. BD2412 T 03:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honorific nicknames in popular music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

This thing is an absolute mess, a hodgepodge list of anything a music publication or blog might have put in a headline, that may include the words "king," "queen," princess etc. and then again may not. It's unclear what an "unambiguous, objective" set of selection criteria (WP:LISTCRIT) would even be here to winnow this down in a meaningful way. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do agree it's ridiculously bloated. If it is kept then some clear rule needs to be applied, like multiple reputable sources per entry. As of now a lot of its content looks like WP:FANCRUFT. - Ïvana (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Lists of people, and Music. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree with the nomination, and like Ivana said, the list is WP:FANCRUFT. There is no actual encyclopaedic use of this list. If someone wants to find out who was best selling artist/legend/respected in particular genre, then they can go to the genre's article. If someone wants to find out nickname of some particular artist, then go that that artist's article. This is an unencyclopaedic, unnecessary, fancruft list. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has been up for deletion several times under other titles, although all of the nominations were in 2008 or 2009. See Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music under "Article milestones". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot of these nicknames are dubious as being recognizable nicknames. As I wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination): "The problem is that if one is trying to establish that a musician is known by one of these honorific titles, a single citation is not enough to do that. A phrase isn't the musician's nickname unless the musician is referred to by that phrase numerous times, not just once or a few times. And this article doesn't differentiate between titles supported by long-standing usage and titles applied by a single writer in a single article." If you saw a headline that said, "The Greatest Album of All Time Belongs to the King of Pop", you probably would know who it was about. "The Greatest Album of All Time Belongs to the King of Rap", you wouldn't. "Rousing tribute to Queen of Soul", you probably would know who it was about. "Rousing tribute to Queen of Pop", you wouldn't. That's because "King of Pop" and "Queen of Soul" are indeed titles associated with particular artists, and "King of Rap" and "Queen of Pop" aren't so associated. In fact, there are 4 different artists listed as having the nickname "King of Rap", and 13 different artists listed as having the nickname "Queen of Pop", in this article. Basically, if lots of people have a honorific nickname, then probably it isn't recognizable as being the nickname of any one of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a flaky assemblage of fancruft tied together with some wobbly thinking, some glossy images, and a bit of fast talking. Nothing to do with encyclopedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many of these are actually widely used nicknames vs just one-off appellations? Sure CBS News said of Garth Brooks, "The king of country music is making plans to retire" but a search for "King of Country" brings up George Strait (also on the list), Elvis, Johnny Cash, and others. Selena Gomez is apparently the "Dance-Pop Princess" but the source juse uses that in lowercase as a descriptor and a search doesn't bring up widespread usage as an actual nickname. Per Metropolitan90, this list is useless. Reywas92^Talk 20:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It definitely looks full of non-notable, one-off descriptors, yet obvious ones like the Waltz King and the Fab Four are missing.

If we decide to keep it, I suggest having an explicit inclusion criterion such as requiring at least 2 unrelated sources referring to the musician using the same nickname, or the nickname being a redirect to the musician's page (e.g. King of Ragtime). The goal would be to limit the list to recognizable nicknames which are actually widely used; such a cut-down list arguably has some encyclopedic value. Perhaps the items which fail the criterion should be left commented out for some time, in case they're legitimate and someone finds more sources. 73.223.72.200 (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In theory I agree with this. It's just not clear what that inclusion criterion would be. Writers will throw all kinds of things into headlines, so even requiring two sources won't necessarily distinguish between actual widely used nicknames and tossed-off commentary. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Rework; It is useful for people who might be searching terms like "Princess of Pop", but as some other people said, it's very bloated. Some of the nicknames are very random like Taylor Swift as "The Music Industry" Tantomile (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor's fans actually refer to her as The Music Industry very often, I've never heard America's Sweetheart though... Edenariel721 (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - also, Category:Nicknames in music exists for those nicknames which are redirects. Walt Yoder (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rework – I agree that this needs to be massively cut down to only super notable/widely used ones, but deleting it altogether wouldn't be the move, I feel, as a reasonable-length article is much easier to navigate for the average (non-editor) Wikipedia viewer than some bloated category would be. Also, the casual browser who is just trying to access a reference for famous nicknames in music history might not even know how to access a category (as opposed to an article) altogether. Even if they do, they would be unable to distinguish which nicknames are considered more famous or important than others just by looking at a longass list of links (i.e., a category page). Furthermore, I agree with the above comment that we should have a definitive criterion for inclusion on this reduced list for the reworked version of the article. CitizenKang414 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete Kitrsjlhf (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rework - as per above, there are loads of broadly used nicknames (and not just by fans) for artists that could be useful to compile. I doubt a random browser is going to somehow end up on a category page and use that to index the nickname to an artist. Maybe a minimum of sources could be enforced? Wanidumalinga (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is getting endless and extremely bloated. It seems like everyone in the showbiz today is Queen and King (which is absurd) and we don't need another WP:INDISCRIMINATE list just because a media outlet calling some musician a Queen/King of something. Also, I personally find it funny when editor vote for "rework" but doesn't give any significant edit to this article. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keep. The selection criteria is fine, and everything is pretty well-referenced, at least for one-shot references. It wouldn't be a bad idea to require multiple sources, but that's not a concern for AfD. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by "pretty well-referenced, at least for one-shot references". As I see it, it's the nicknames that have only been used one time that are the big problem with this article. If this list stuck to common nicknames like "King of Rock and Roll" for Elvis Presley, or "Godfather of Soul" for James Brown, the article might be facing a lot less criticism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Derp! Sorry, I meant for "multiple-use" references. Indeed, if multiple sources were required, the list wouldn't have quite so many entries for snappy nicknames that a single author used just once. But that's something for the article's talk page, not a deletion discussion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm changing to Delete. After re-reading the article and thinking about the context of the draftify discussion, the inclusion criteria is not established and the de facto inclusion criteria seems too weak. Maybe there's some kind of "list of music nicknames" article, but this isn't it just now. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move: 'List of Honorific nicknames in popular music' would be a more appropriate title for this article as written, which I think is otherwise fine Jack4576 (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just a pile of WP:FANCRUFT that fails NLIST. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the fancruft essay is not policy, fancruft has not been banned Jack4576 (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't encyclopedic, seems to have a promotional angle and as someone above has mentioned this falls into INDISCRIMINATE. It's becoming extremely bloated and a lot of the entries are only because some media outlet called a musician the queen/king/etc. of some particular genre. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is it promoting? Musicians generally ? ? ?

Jack4576 (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems rather promotional towards the individuals listed. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it should be reworked. I think the quality of the prose portion could be improved. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after a major rework: The article is currently far too bloated and I agree with Ïvana that if it's kept then it would be beneficial if some clear rules were implemented for the article, such as multiple reputable sources per entry. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after rework, I think readers have found this article interesting with an average of 70,000 monthly views, therefore it can be beneficial if this page is kept. At the same time, there should be clear guidelines imposed on this article that can lower the level of WP:FANCRUFT—perhaps requiring consensus for each entry in order to be added to this page? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 14:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after a major rework, per reasons by @Kind Tennis Fan and also to make the prose much better. Possibly organize by genre, move to List of honorific titles in popular music, include more relevant information, and redo the lead so that the notability and "necessity" for this article is much more obvious. OfTheUsername (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have just separated the "group and collective names" into two different sections -- one for nicknames given to groups (such as BTS being called "The World's Biggest Boy Band"), and the other for collective nicknames given to multiple artists (such as Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Prince being called the "Holy Trinity of Pop"). In my opinion, most of the collective title nicknames are even less credible than many of the nicknames listed in this article for individuals or groups. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after rework - Yes, there ~~are~~ were non-credible nicknames and "titles" on the page, and this obviously needs to be corrected. Notability is not an issue, as some titles are very real and used widely. I agree with my fellow editors here in that the page needs reliable sources and to be watched for any promotive material and for it to be speedily removed in the future.

BurgeoningContracting 12:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment If the result is keep, I also agree a major clean up should be necessary. Eg: limit those unnecessary nicknames (some artists, especially "divas" have even 7 or 10 nicknames alone, or redundant ones, see Ricky Martin). Perhaps a limit of 3 examples per individual should works. Major nicknames, including "Queen of Soul", "King of Pop", "Goddess of Pop", and "Queen of Pop" have a plenty of artists with that attribution... "Queen of Soul" and "King of Pop" are particularly ignored by users-fandoms, but there exists more artists with that attribution beyond current examples both in print or online sources. I'm wonder if the article could be divided? as there a lot of obscure acts, Honorific nicknames in popular music (A—J) and (K-Z)? just ideas. I'm not oppose to completely delete the article. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with maybe a very limited scope to merge a little of the prose elsewhere. The list is not one of "honorific nicknames". It is just a load of descriptions from various sources. Some of them are promotional descriptions invented by record companies. Some are casual descriptions by journalists. Many are duplicated. I mean, I think we have no less than six "godfathers of punk" here, some vastly more credible than others in that claim. I see no encyclopaedic value in the list at all. It is indiscriminate and needs to go. That does not leave enough for an article on the alleged topic of honorific nicknames in popular music although maybe it can be mentioned briefly somewhere else, presumably in an article about the marketing and/or promotion of pop music. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think it's a notable subject. As a new page reviewer, I go through a lot of redirects, and this page ends up being the perfect target for a surprising number of them. I find this to be, essentially, a large disambiguation page and I think if it gets deleted we'll end up with dozens of disambiguation pages to take its place. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It definitely seems like a notable topic, but the article needs work. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Josh and WP:DELETIONNOTCLEANUP. A rework would be fine for this notable topic. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article might wind up being kept, in circumstances where most of the "keep" recommenders have indicated that it needs to be reworked. If so, I hope that the reworking actually takes place, which would probably require the criteria for inclusion in the article to be tightened and explicitly stated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The promised reworks almost rarely take place, in my observations. I wonder why the process doesn't draftify articles that were nominated with "Keep after rework" votes so that they can be deleted until they really are reworked. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still favour deletion but I think this is a reasonable proposal if the article is to be kept in any form. It should not be allowed back into the article space until the entire list is removed and the prose turned into a minimally adequate article, which it isn't at present. I have grave doubts that that is even possible, hence my Delete !vote, but if anybody is going to attempt this then it should be done in the draft space. DanielRigal (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a conversation about this approach on the article's talk page. -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rework The subject is notable, but it needs rework and clean up and maybe new policies to limit the titles. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is a very interesting read. Fun, even. But…man…is it a mess, varying widely in both legitimate and dubious entries. That’s because despite the good intentions by whoever created this article, the wikipedia standard criteria for these kinds of lisst allows an entry to be verified by a single reference. Thus, all it takes is for a single writer published by an RS to refer to a performer by a nickname, and—viola! Proof, per Wikipedia standards, that it’s a verifiable honorific, even if that name is largely unfamiliar and unused by the rest of the world. The entry/reference for Tyler Childers is a good example, which seems to be based on a Rolling Stone article title rather than any proof that he is widely known as “The Voice of Appalachia.” That’s just one example, I don’t have the time or inclination to check the sources for this entire list! Fixing this list requires a very specific criteria to be created that uses a much stronger threshold. I doubt “keeping and fixing” as many editors are voting will result in the changes needed. I advocate blowing this up and starting over, which would result in fewer entries….for the better. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the purposed guidelines are too vague and are not going to be universally agreed upon. Who dubs the nickname? Why would one nickname be valid compared to another? Plus the best starting point is a sandbox. My advice is delete and if a editor disagrees, then build the structure in a Sandbox setting create the article with the guidance in place and examples and let it grow with structure that most good articles do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs)
Keep: While the list is in need of reworking, the subject itself (that is, "Honorific nicknames in popular music") is notable. —Matthew / (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article itself is notable, even if it needs a cleanup a good proportion of the nicknames are accurate, checks of names to remove those without multiple, reliable sources that show long-term, common usage can occur over time. Happily888 (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the principle that these are legitimate titles given by actual reliable sources… not fans… and that it helps to keep them all in one place. Trillfendi (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs some work. But overall notable subject/s per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very notable because there are lots of great artists which received these honorific nicknames in lots of publishments and it can be of great use for readers who want to know more about this. Would be a shame if this page gets deleted. Coldbolt (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very notable page, especially the world-famous moniker the King of Rock and Roll for Elvis Presley. Maybe delete some obscure nicknames which are only used by die-hard fans but if a considerable amount of people use the nickname, I don't think it's fancruft. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - can be expanded, see WP:MERGE. Just because CURRENT doesn’t entail deletionism is warranted. SITH (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our WP:NLIST guideline. There are legitimate titles. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Rework: I suggest leaving only the deceased on the list and delete everyone else I don't care how famous (ex: Madonna) they might be. Osw719 (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2023 (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.