Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of the Streets of Rage series

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. BD2412 T 01:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the Streets of Rage series

[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)

WP:FANCRUFT need I say more and I don’t know if this also fails WP:GNG but it looks like it is more suitable for those who are fans of the music of the video game series from the 90s that had a fourth installment released earlier this year but other than that I don't know if this would be enough to save it. Pahiy (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Fancruft" is not a valid reason for deletion, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Furthermore the music of Streets of Rage is rather notable with Yuzo Koshiro being known as one of the greatest composers in video game music alongside greats like Nobuo Uematsu. In other words, this is clearly notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete to Streets of Rage. Most of the sources seem to be about the game and not specifically about the music. Plus, there's already a section for it in Streets of Rage. So, this is needless FORK. It is also pretty FANCRAFT heavy and TNT would likely apply. Once the FANCRAFT is chopped out it would be almost exactly or less then the amount of content in the main Streets of Rage article. So, there's zero reason to keep it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator labelled the discussion about the real life development of the series' music which cites reliable sources as "Fancruft" without actually articulating why the discussion is considered it to be WP:FANCRUFT. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is opinion and not a good enough rationale for merging or even deleting the article. Haleth (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can just read the paragraph to see it's full of FANCRAFT. If you actually have a problem with opinion then you should have a problem with the article. Since that's what every other word in it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARTN says that the quality of writing in the current article is not relevant to the notability of the subject. Notability is determined by the existence of reliable sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it should be obvious that AfDs/AfD discussions aren't just confined to notability. No where in the guidelines does it say they are. Adamant1 (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They absolutely are confined to notability. Look at WP:ARTN and WP:NOTCLEANUP. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCLEANUP specifically mentions TNT as a justification for deletion and TNT has nothing to do with notability. Its 100% about the quality of writting. Adamant1 (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor the nominator have explained yet why the content in the article which are cited to another source falls within the definition of WP:Fancruft or WP:OR. Have you highlighted any specific content from the article as examples of material for which no reliable, published sources exist? I also invite you to re-read WP:TNT, which itself I should point out is an essay/opinion piece, not a wikipedia editing guideline. It is established precedent that copyright violations and content where there is evidence of extensive cases of advocacy and undisclosed paid sock farms are blown up or speedily deleted. Are you or the nominator able to identify instances of these issues in this article? Besides these hard and fast examples, the onus for the nominator (and for you since you seem much more active than the nominator on advocating for the article's deletion) to achieve consensus for deletion here, since you invoked the recommendations provided by WP:TNT, would be to argue that the article is in fact "hopelessly irreparable". In an article which extensively covers statements of fact and opinion from several reliable sources, how would you argue that the article does not meet GNG or does not have significant coverage from reliable sources which are independent of the subject topic, which is the primary concern of WP:N and thus AfD discussions? Haleth (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The music on its own I believe is notable enough, as its the main topic of most of the sources. And I believe just because it only really appeals to a small group, its still a group. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, it keeps account of topics and culture. Jean Mercanton is only viewed 5-15 times a month, but its info about a person, that people wonder about. If people like the music from Streets of Rage and want to learn more about it, this is where they'd go. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 14:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator's argument is flawed. "FANCRUFT need I say more" is not in line with existing policy; it's a clear call to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nominator also suggests that the article will be of interest to people who are interested in the subject of the article. This is not a compelling argument. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think TNT would apply. Since 99% of it is OR and a non-neutral personal essay. Adamant1 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

99% is OR? It has 33 sources. Are you sure you are talking about the same article?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there are sources like this piece that explicitly say things like "Streets of Rage 2’s revolutionary 1992 soundtrack was ahead of its time" and "Yuzo Koshiro is among the most renowned composers in VGM history". There is no extrapolation here. The sources support the article's existence._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. For one, the Games Rader article is purely a non-neutral opinion piece. References are suppose to be in-depth descriptions of the subject. Which doesn't include the authors personal feelings. Maybe to a slight degree if it's album review or something similar, but that's not the article is. The author of the piece, Joe McNeilly, has only written a few pieces for Games Rader. One of which is called "Portal is the most subversive game ever." Which among other hyperbolic things has the lines "This modern masterpiece shakes the FPS genre to the very core" and "Warning: The text you are about to read contains heady intellectual discourse." No one with any kind of integrity about this would say that Portal (video game) or any other article in Wikipedia should be a place for "heady intellectual discourse." This isn't a "philosophy of gaming" blog and portal being the most supervise game ever is purely a single persons opinions. Same goes for the stuff in this article. It being on gaming blog website is inconsequential to that. Joe McNeilly is not an expert in the field video games. He's hardly even a writer of video game articles. It would be analogous to using a guest writer for Breitbart News (or hell any writer) to justify putting in Donald Trump that he's the best president ever. That's not how Wikipedia or notability works. You couldn't even get away with by citing the person. But in this case, the fawning things about Streets of Rages music are not quoted and they are written as if it's they are the opinion of Wikipedia. Which is simply miss-leading and not true. Although I doubt it, maybe you get away with a very similar article how it is now, but again, most of it would have to be in direct quotes so it's clear Wikipedia isn't taking a stance in any direction. No one is going to re-write it that way though. Nor should they have to. Which is exactly why TNT applies. Ultimately though, notability doesn't come down to some random person saying something is cool or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any proof that this "Joe McNeilly" is not knowledgeable about video games. Maybe GamesRadar+ had lower standards 10+ years ago and were down with the posting of parody articles and the like, but there are plenty of his articles that also seem like totally legit reviews. One does not simply discount an article wholesale due to the existence of other articles that might be goofy. They obviously hired him on a site, editorially approved him and told him to write such an article. With the way you are ranting about it, I doubt that would convince you, but those are the facts._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discounting the article because of it sounds. That there are other goofy sounding articles around the same time by the same guy just add context to the fact that it's not a article. They could have hired a monkey to beat on a keyboard. That's not the point though. That aside, even if the article was a serious one about the music, it isn't in-depth anyway. As most it is off topic. The fact that the focus of this AfD is on a single, clearly not serious or in-depth article just goes to show this isn't notable. Even if it was though, that still doesn't mean it couldn't just be a section of the Streets of Rage article. Plenty of notable topics still aren't forks and I have to hear an argument from anyone why it's not a good option. Just personal opinions about the nominators motivations based on an irrelevant essay and things like "keep because Joe McNeilly sarcastically thinks it's the best music ever and someone told him to write the article." --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.gamesradar.com/game-music-of-the-day-streets-of-rage/ And many other reliable sources giving it significant coverage are already referenced in the article. It passes the general notability guidelines, this just a bad nomination from someone who calls it fancruft and clearly doesn't like it. Dream Focus 17:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Totally notable. Here are high quality sources not used in the article:
- Jarman, Casey (12 June 2020). "The Enduring Musical Legacy of "Streets of Rage"". Bandcamp Daily.
- Park, Gene (May 12, 2020). "Here comes the drop(kick): The sick beats in 'Streets of Rage'". Washington Post.
- Acovino, Vincent (June 12, 2020). "How 'Streets Of Rage 4' Reimagined Gaming's Most Iconic Rave". NPR.org.
- Diver, Mike (May 7, 2016). "The 'Streets of Rage 2' Soundtrack Still Sounds Amazing Decades Later". Vice.
- Twells, John (17 February 2018). "Yuzo Koshiro and Motohiro Kawashima's Streets of Rage 3 OST is a valuable slice of techno history". FACT Magazine.
- Ombler, Mat (19 November 2018). "Off the streets and onto the dancefloor: the lasting impact of Streets of Rage's soundtrack". Eurogamer.

Only the best of the best soundtracks get coverage like that; Streets of Rage music was that important. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 12:37, 24 October 2020 (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.