Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie soul

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.

Indie soul

The result was moved to WP:DRAFT space. A draft which editors are now expected to bring to WP:AFC standards. El_C 02:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

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

Indie soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy declined. Not a musical genre, a WP:BEFORE doesn't bring up any sources that speak of it as an established, standalone musical genre. Assuming good faith, it was started by a new editor (see original discussion). I'm not sure if there's an ATD, perhaps, Indie music (disambiguation)? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. Looks like the term is used some, but I dont see what of all of this is supposed to be having it meet the GNG, the article is in awful shape and not ready for the main space, and the article creator isn't taking advice from experienced editors to fix any of this, so I don't see a path to a "keep" stance at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Im sorry you feel that way. I have been taking advice from those that thoughtfully gave it on the actual mechanical improvements. It doesn't mean I am incorrect that the original editor was wrong in the manor in which he tried to delete it (according to the wiki guide) and didn't properly go about it(according to the wiki guide). Nor, that an issue of unintentional or intentional bias is involved when someone questions a pervasive and popular african-american genre term. When something like Nederpop has zero sources and no one is over in the Netherlands speedy deleting it. The correct course of action as stated by wiki would have been to let me know how to improve it/help me improve it.
    It is clearly referenced regularly by BET, Rolling stone, Reuters, BBC, Fader, Baltimore Times, NY Times, Forbes, Elle, Billboard, The Post, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Vogue, Complex, CNN, PBS, etc. and has books and movies, and tv shows about the subject. In relation to artists/albums/songs being in that genre. As was easy to verify.
    So instead of continuing to improve on the thing I was working on I've had to defend the existence of reality caused by someone who didnt go about things by the rules.
    What I will refrain to obey is being told to be a good boy, and be quiet, while someone condescendingly quotes soapbox, righterofwrongs, and other coded language. He is saying the quiet part out loud, and will not stand by or ignore equity ignorance. Im sorry that makes people uncomfortable.
    I was just trying to create a worthwhile page on a worthwhile topic. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You don't have to bring up an article that lacks a reference (of which there are thousands). For a second time I am asking you to stop bringing race into it. This is a musical genre. I did a quick WP:BEFORE check to see if I could find some reliable sources, I couldn't find any. You are not assuming good faith towards me and are using improper WP:ADHOMINEM arguments. I am not using "coded language". Stop making it about race. Stick to the discussion. You've been asked several times to bring up WP:THREE reliable sources. Go do that. Stop barraging the article with references that are just passing mentions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Speedy nomination was made in bad faith and without proper due diligence. I believe the proposed deletion was made in bad faith and with our proper due diligence. Per wikipedia standards. I propose Wikipedia:Speedy keep unless you can provide citations otherwise. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely invalid speedy keep stance. You created an article with zero sources in it. That is naturally is going to raise notability concerns. Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, no one asked you to be a "good boy". I asked you to concisely provide your WP:THREE that prove the WP:GNG is met. If you've done that, you certainly did an awful job of portraying it across these long wall-of-texts response that go on all sorts of irrelevant tangents. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sergecross73, I've been looking at indie soul. Since Atmospherpolyphonic last message here, they made 20+ edits to the article. The WP:REFBOMBing continues, they haven't assumed good faith and made ad hominem attacks, haven't responded to a fairly simple WP:THREE request (or WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT) and they propose a speedy keep "unless you can provide citations otherwise". Can we still call all these issues beginners inexperience? Is this becoming a WP:COMPETENCE issue? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted AfroCrowd and am refraining from further participation in a Show trial and fraudulent discussion that shouldn't have been occurred in the first place. I am not reference bombing, as the respondent said above you erred in trying to Speedy delete and then AFD in the first 20 minutes the article was up and I informed you I was writing and adding citations based off my research as I was completing the article. A much better use of time than proving existence of an entire culture to someone. I am quite competent as I am a PHD candidate at NYU. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's my answer. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
2. https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1055&context=auctus
3. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/music-industry-racism-1010001/ Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The great thing about the internet is everything people do on it is there forever, in the light of day. And that I am not by myself or solely responsible for black music cultures. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMPETENCE "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack." Coded language of "this guy doesn't belong in our club" right? Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And my references are for every single piece line by line since you also added the banner of original research. And now not a single line of text is derived from original research. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in order to assist in your zealous concern of a proliferation of music genres I found a very alarming grouping of Dutch music misdeeds you may be more familiar with and in need of your mighty Afd wand. They seem to have had more than 20 minutes to exist and be improved and I thought I would alert you to the nefarious presence to alleviate what I know will be anguish.
Whereas this subject...that you twice stated that I made up...has copious media coverage, writings, films decades of traditions, 10'000's of artists, and is currently in the top 20 genres listened to on Spotify. But we both know it "doesn't exist" has already entered a review process. We have to keep an eye on black people and their "music."
Nederpop
Jumpstyle
Tumba (music)
Mainstream hardcore
Dutch jazz
Indorock
Dutch hip hop
Rock music in the Netherlands
I will check in on them to see how your AFD's are going...we can't have too much dutchness running rampant on our spaces, you know? Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all extremely misguided. Soetermans, at no point, has cited, race/country/location/anything like this ans a reason for their stances. All I see is someone weaponizing the fact that that someone voluntarily listed their own country on their user page. This is truly a shameful display. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no issue with the Netherlands, love it, been there many times. The issue is someone from the Netherlands, tried to speedy delete(got insta-rejected) then immediately AFD something that was less than an hour old. Accused me of "making up something" twice, didn't do his own research, didn't follow wiki guidelines, quoted "Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX or the place for your to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS." and WP:COMPETENCE (all in contrivance of the stated wiki policies including. Do not use in a dispute with a writer" and not one person has acknowledged so, issued a warning, questioned it. It was
I provided a list of Netherlands music genres that arent AFD and have been on for years to point out a Satire(which by its nature is directed at people with more power), and witty I might add casting light on the double standard. It would be hilarious if it wasn't true. Then has the audacity to try and come up with different sets of other rules to put something down.
To be taking place on a topic about a genre that was a catalyst and that is heavily tied in to the social justice and the African American experience. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem not once has there been the reflection of "maybe I was mistaken because of my lack of awareness of another culture". Even the statement of "there have been 20+ edits" as if me editing the article is somehow wrong, when that is what I was suppose to be doing. And calling my competence in question. When the wiki says "please feel free to continue to improve" and he was made aware that I had JUST put it up and was in the process of adding them as he was trying to remove it and mark it with any means available. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's focus on sources, not what the issue was/wasn't with the CSD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See below> Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. There's an article here, but it still needs work; it has blank sections, is still being heavily worked on by its creator, and I'm not convinced every source is relevant. Needs some time in userspace to incubate I think. CoconutOctopus talk 22:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing is extra as the Original AFD after having been proved wrong in me creating the term said I was writing original content. So I made clear every line was non original. Also the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force has taken this under their wing. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources should be reliable and offer more than just a passing mention of the topic; with over 50 sources on one relatively short article you're hitting WP:BOMBARDMENT levels, way more than is practical for anyone to read. You want sources that discuss the genre and provide a proper background on it, not just anything that mentions it by name. CoconutOctopus talk 23:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be country restrictions on you viewing content. These were provided already.
  • Undeniable-Feature film - Story of Independent Soul https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s1JNLTso6QQ
  • Book - Over 100 mentions of indie-soul/soul pop

All Music Guide to Soul( The definitive guide to Randb and soul) [ALL MUSIC GT SOUL] [Paperback]: VladimirBogdanov

Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've backed off from the article and this discussion for a couple of days. A personal message by Sergecross73 and several requests of just WP:THREE valid, reliable sources that discuss the subject were ignored. Instead, the WP:REFBOMBing continued unabated with 125 edits since nominating the article for deletion (work on an article nominated for deletion, but maybe bring up the WP:THREE sources requested? Just a thought). There have been racial assumptions, WP:CANVASSING at not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six but seven times. Walls of text were repeated again. There were several WP:WHATABOUTX arguments,on the term indie and again on music from the Netherlands, which was followed by a a final warning on aspersions. I'm curious what to see what Atmospherpolyphonic's next reply will be. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To bring up WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED once more, a link to a YouTube trailer to a film called Undeniable - The Story Of The Independent Soul Music Movement is not a reliable source and doesn't help establish notability. Looking up the title, I found this article, which points to a closed an Indiegogo campaign (indiegogo (dot) com/projects/abc--35#/). 10 years ago, it raised US$960 out of its goal of $50.000 and hasn't been made. Being a competent editor also means being able to make a distinction what is and what isn't a reliable source. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've told them that the podcast is very likely unreliable per WP:SPS here, but they continued linking to it as if it is a sign of notability without saying why it can be considered reliable. Sorry, Atmospherpolyphonic, I have some IRL work to do and I can't really keep trying to help you save the article. This has left me quite streesed, and I think I'm going to take a short wikibreak. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 14:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ObserveOwl - I've repeatedly tried to guide Atmospherpolyphonic on how AFD works and how they should approach things differently, and they've refused or ignored me every time, so I've simply stopped. They seem determined to learn things the hard way. Don't let it stress you out, you've already done more than enough. The rest is on them, not you. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I havent ignored you. I have tried. I am still waiting for other editors to also correct soetermans for the actual clear infraction of very clear wiki policies. While he continues to play two sets of rules. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again. You nominated the article(twice) after 20 minutes of being up. I informed you I was in the middle of adding my research and completing the article. Of course there have been edits as I am working on it. And you are incorrect the movie was made as was the PBS series. The fact that the failed to raise investment funding via indigogo has nothing to do with it. Being a competent editor means realizing when you are wrong time and time again because of a lack of awareness. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "Can you please review the happenings, thank you" is not canvasing. As well as you telling me dont write walls while writing walls. There was no reference bombing. You said I made things up I provided books, research papers, and pieces published in major media for every single line of text. I have systematically undermined every argument you made starting from "the author made up this work" There were no WP:WHATABOUTX. There was a direction to a clear bias. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atmospherpolyphonic I am very close to blocking you from participation in this discussion. PLease stop with the personal attacks. Star Mississippi 22:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My dear fellow editor, I did a quick WP:BEFORE check and nominated the article for deletion. Get over it. I copy-pasted two diffs of you saying something that is considered WP:WHATABOUTX, one of which is on this very page. You have said some very strange things about me and Dutch music and have received a final warning for your behaviour. You seem to be WP:NOTGETTINGIT. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My dear fellow editor. I have received a warning of that you are correct, where as you have not, strangely. Which is odd given the number of infractions I have pointed out in your process and in your behavior. Which I will do again. You twice nominated for deletion an article 20 minutes in to being up after being informed I had just got it up and was correcting being unfamiliar with the mechanics of the visual editor, Without providing proper proof of your work to research or following thoughtful SOPS and interactions with an early editor as to you concerns. My interaction with you were polite and friendly until you made them otherwise with YOUR behavior. You quoted Wikipedia:Competence is required about me. "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack."
You quoted Soapbox and Righterofwrongs at a minority writing about a minority sensitive topic (after having been informed that was the perception of what was happening). In opposition of stated policy on each of those pages as well as clearly defined guidance in treatment of other editors. That is what started the situation. I am new and just learned the rules. What is your excuse? Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And those are not WP:WHATABOUTX arguments. They were hints as to similar topic with ZERO citation and much inferior pages that have not been attempted deletes twice after years of being up. They were things you might be familiar with since they are from your culture. (I am not and had never heard of them so I leave them to people more informed in the subject area) and after having pointed them out to you, you didn't feel the need to speedy or AFD. I was not using them as a reason FOR my article (my article is entirely mainstream) I was using them to illustrate a starkly different treatment. I was using storyfication. What those "reasons" are can be inferred by individuals on their own. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin Note, I have p-blocked Atmospherpolyphonic from this page as well as the article so a consensus can develop independent of their bludgeoning. Longer note TK on their Talk Star Mississippi 23:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Sad to see a passionate person lacking competence and not willing to listen. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:49, 12 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indie_soul&oldid=1196739687"