Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1950s in 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. I note that both sides were somewhat lacking in terms of the strength of arguments advanced, but consensus seems to be leaning towards "keep". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1950s in music

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

This list overlaps Timeline of musical events. There are also pages for each "Year in Music." Unnecessary list. Leoniceno (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Leoniceno (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jeremy (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we propose this article for deletion, the whole series of articles with names "XXXXs in music" would have to be proposed. the articles in this series on the 60s, 70s and 80s are all unreferenced. of course band names in articles link to articles which hopefully show the decade they worked in. I question the quality of all these articles, but im not sure we should try to delete them all. We should either quickly close this discusson as keep and tag this and all the articles based on their quality, or open up the discussion on the whole series, either here or at a project page.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why we are unable to discuss these individually. Your argument seems like a classic example of WP:ALLORNOTHING, which in general, is not very strong. I agree that a large number of these are not good articles, but that doesn't compel us to close this one as a keep when consensus appears to be pointing the other way. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. i would argue that articles on the musical tradition of a decade should start around 1950 or 1960, with the postwar rise of mass popular culture and tv in us and worldwide. I would be inclined to put content of articles prior to 50s or 60s in the articles on each year, and have articles on the decades start with either 50 or 60. there is a common perception that decades have measureable qualities, which is not true, but is so widely held that it can be sourced here. i bet it started happening more around this time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Great concept but needs work - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic that could be expanded to book length if necessary. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for the other articles in the series. The existence of a whole group of parallel articles is a good argument, as I understand Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. It's usually not a good idea to remove one article in a series. In a series of XX in year or decade or century articles, a well established major part of Wikipedia it is necessary to use a sequence of fixed periods, in order to avoid erratic coverage. Of course this may not correspond to particulat major movements, which is why we also have articles on those movements. Looking at WorldCat, I notice over 5,000 books on 1950s in something or other [1] dsp the general concept is certainly valid. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC) DGG ( talk )[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.