Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010s in urban 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 snowball delete. Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010s in urban music

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

This is crystal-ball gazing, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010s in music. We cannot say anything about the trends in this decade within its first week, and as a consequence the articles are full of waffle, opinion and speculation.

I am also nominating:

All but the last two created by the same editor, all totally devoid of proper content. A delete and redirect to 2010 in x would be OK for each of them. Fences&Windows 23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This is crystal ball gazing through and through. JBsupreme (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We might also propose a corollary of WP:TenPoundHammer's Law: If the potentially important contributors of a future decade are not yet known, the decade in music/science/fashion/etc. article is likely to be deleted. Cnilep (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I agree, it is too early for these articles. Andrew0921 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much, much too early for these articles. Warrah (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per failure of WP:CRYSTAL. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not only does it fail WP:CRYSTAL, but the articles are full of unsourced POV content/speculation. Nymf _talk/contr. 03:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles seem of variable quality--some seem at present a fair attempt at defining the status at the beginning of the period,which I think we could already do. So I ask the question--when do we intend to permit the articles, or shall we try every 6 months? DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd salt the lot until 2011 starts. Fences&Windows 15:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have created these articles so we can track the decade's progress AS it goes on, and not see it in a (biased) retrospect. DriveMySol (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone else. For the same reason, too. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd favor moving some of the ideas to the author's user page, encourage them to come up with sources, and maybe write it at the end of March, 3 months after the year has passed at the earliest. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per tons of apparently original research, and almost no sourced content. Unit Anode 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This should be snowed under, I think. Unit Anode 06:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just redirected 2010s in music to 2010 in music, a temporal solution. Probably applicable here as well... --Tone 00:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the television article, at least. Sahasrahla (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2010 (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.