Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Kirby 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Kirby Music

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

Neologism, I can't find any pertinent hits that prove the existence of a sub group of music named "Robin Kirby Music" Travelbird (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already spent an extra hour on here following around your admin editing, you guys are slave drivers for free labor. Give me a chance, or enjoy losing another helper. Thank You. finding dreams 08:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Bad nom, for an otherwise debatable article. The nom is apparently based on the editing cruft at the top of the article, and not the body which has a clearer description of the topic, a music promotion company and band. Found several real hits on Google, but still has questionable N. Does not appear on iTunes, which I find to be a reasonable razor in many cases. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, most of the articles I'm editing at the request of wikipedia have very "Band nom" as you put it. Yet here will all sit fixing them. Can you haze someone else please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingdreams (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The article is quite badly written. It is still not fully clear whether the article is on a genre of music or on the musician Robin Kirby. From what I could originally gathered the prior seemed more likely, but after multiple subsequent edits it now seems to focus more in the musician - also of very questionable notability. I might also add, that the article was originally tagged for a speedy delete by User:Wuhwuzdat. When the author of the page removed that tag (against Wikipedia rules), I opted to go the slower route of Prod and then AfD instead of restoring the speedy tag to give the author a bit of time to improve the article. However Findingdreams has repeatedly removed these tags from the page as well, despite several messages explaining that he shouldn't do so. Travelbird (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: having watched the evolution of this article from something potentially interesting to something else entirely, I'm changing my vote. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wish you guys would just delete and shut up. I really don't care. I was trying to make a decent article when "freebird" up there scared the hell out of me. So I made it more abstract, like a lawyer would to stop the attack on my efforts. I'm not here to write. At least not now. Not after seeing this. I'll just edit, and help where I can. It's not like this is the only place in the world to post something about "Robin Kirby Music". I vote it down too! : ) finding dreams 00:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Can you guys go be anal retentive somewhere else now? I'm not worthy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingdreams (talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 January 2011 JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This debate and the history of the article are truly bizarre. If the intention here is for an article about the musician Robin Kirby, then this person will merit an article when notability is achieved via extensive third-party coverage of albums or appearances. If the article is meant to describe an emerging genre of music, it would completely violate the Wikipedia policy on original research. If the article is a work in progress, then it could possibly go into incubation or userfication. And overall, it looks like the author of the article has given up anyway. Don't be defensive just because Wikipedia isn't what you thought it was. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and TRavelbird. Kudpung (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2011 (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.