Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncredited background singer

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. Rlendog (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncredited background singer

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

Deprodded with an WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL rationale on talk page by the page's author. I see no sources to verify the lack of verification, so the article is stuck as an unsourced, OR-riddled dicdef/laundry list with no chance of changing. The utter lack of edits in 5 years of existence is telling. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "No chance of changing?" It is, in fact, trivially easy to improve the article. I knew nothing about the topic going in but a quick bit of searching soon turns up a source - The Book of Rock Lists which contains a section Great Cameo Appearances. This includes the Lennon/McCartney performance on the Stones single, for example. I would tag this for rescue as this seems to be the sort of topic the ARS would eat up but that option has been disrupted now and so improving the article can remain as someone else's problem. Warden (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's clearly not a dicdef (that would be a stub simply saying "Uncredited background vocals are when someone provides additional vocals to a recording and is not named on the credits"). Warden has found a source very easily, so the lack of verification is a case of WP:SOFIXIT/WP:NOTCLEANUP. It hasn't been edited much? Well, there's no deadline. I don't see how there's no chance of expansion (from the original PROD) and it's not explained why the nominator believes that is the case. In short, none of the nomination arguments strike me as valid reasons for deletion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOEFFORT nod. Added another instance, with reliable cites. Some notable musicians have contributed to some notable works. Although there's room for improvement, notability is asserted. Mr Neese (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs for most of them now added. The fact that they were uncredited at the time does not mean that reliable sources cannot be found. The article needs developing (and may perhaps be better as a WP:LIST), but is non-trivial. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see how, on first glance, that the article would look like a unsourced list of trivia and original research, but the sources found already definitely suggest a legit article could be written here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements, RS'ed, well-scoped. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um... the article has been deleted; out of process and against an emerging consensus? Them From Space 03:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested its undeletion at WP:UND. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it is restored. So I suggest that the delete be ignored, and discussion continues. Let the closing admin decide. Myself, I think that no edits for 5 years means nothing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could do with linking from the backing singer article, and sourced text about the reasons for using uncredited singers (contracts, etc.) added. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can point me to where it says Wikipedia is a thesaurus. The About Wikipedia page doesn't mention it. Ken Tholke (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this article does not resemble a thesaurus entry... Have they changed what thesauri contain without telling me? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:02, 24 February 2012 (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.