Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark blues

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. All right, everybody apparently agrees that this should not be an article about this supposed music style, but we do not agree whether it should be deleted outright, made into a dab page or redirected to something about boats. I think that deletion of the present content should not be controversial, on this basis, as a first step. Editors can continue to attempt to resolve editorially what else should occupy this space.  Sandstein  09:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unsourced WP:NEO, can find no clear sources (only ambiguous review mentions which could just as plausibly be describing a particular blues artist as being "dark"). Article provides no example artists as clues, and nothing links here, the navbox addition being rejected as unsourced. McGeddon (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful for directing readers to topic of this name per WP:DAB. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User:Andrew Davidson is referring to his replacement of the article with a disambiguation page which does not mention the supposed music genre at all here, rather than the subject of the AfD. I've reverted that edit per WP:EDITATAFD. --McGeddon (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:EDITATAFD states "You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period." I have made a similar constructive update when the nominator previously tried to prod it. They keep reverting for perverse reasons as they don't want the content that they revert to. This seems disruptive and they are misusing the rollback feature for this purpose. See also dog in the manger. Andrew D. (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • EDITAFD goes on to say "There are, however, a few restrictions upon how you may edit an article: You must not blank the article". Removing all the content from an article and replacing it with an unrelated disambiguation page is effectively blanking it. I objected to you redirecting a day-old article to an unrelated subject when it didn't meet any speedy deletion criteria, and you (perversely?) objected to me putting the prod template back up after that disagreement, so here we are (weeks after that prod would have resolved) with an AfD. --McGeddon (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, WP:BLANK explains that "page blanking means editing a page so as to leave it completely blank". My edits have maintained consistent content throughout such as the link to the Oxford University Boat Club, which is a significant meaning of this title. Making the page a red link would be disruptive and McGeddon should please leave well alone rather than engaging in endless process for its own sake. Andrew D. (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Oxford University Boat Club, or like Light Blues, it could redirect to the more general Blue Boat. It's a very commonly used nickname and while the capitalisation isn't quite spot on, it's the sort of thing we'd expect our readers to type into the search box. I would imagine they wouldn't be terribly disappointed to discover it was the OUBC nickname. Would seem a unfair to favour the Tabs over Oxon in this case... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2017 (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.