Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American patriotic music (2nd nomination)

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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The last AfD closed two months ago, and I can't see consensus changing that fast, especially given that the previous AfD was a rather clear keep. Most, if not all, of the nominator's cited problems can easily be fixed without bringing the deletion hammer down. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American patriotic music

All this issues from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American patriotic music still exist fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV,WP:Cite ,WP:SYN and WP:V .Their has only been 4 [1] non tagging edits to the text since the last AFD. The article was kept to give a chance for improvement this has not occurred Gnevin (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may not be the greatest article or the best possible treatment of this particular topic. But this is definitely a topic that needs to be covered in an encyclopedia. Problems with the article should be dealt with through normal editing rather than by deletion. I don't think this article has significant problems with original research or verifiability; while not everyone agrees about what constitutes American patriotic music, some songs, such as "America the Beautiful" and "God Bless America", would be generally accepted selections as such. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Given that loads of wikipedia projects that deal with the aforementioned issues are backlogged over one year or 10000 articles, it's a bit much to ask that those issues be finished in a month's time. Technically, pretty well every article in this encyclopedia is kept for improvement, anyway :) --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The shortcomings cited by the nom should be fixed by article improvement and are not sufficient for article deletion. There's already enough there that's reliably sourced to verify the subject's encyclopedic value. As Falcon DK says, more improvement will come with time, as with many once-stub articles that are now GA! JGHowes ^talk - 11:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two months is too soon to renominate an article for AFD, especially if there's been stated intent to improve it and a strong Keep decision. If it hasn't been improved by the end of the year, then let's talk. And even then AFD should not be used to spur improvement of an article. The purpose of AFD is to decide the suitability and viability of articles. IMO there's no doubt that this is a suitable topic. 23skidoo (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some refs from the Library of Congress Performing Arts Encyclopedia, which discusses American Patriotic songs in general as well as having a well documented article on each one. Additional reliable sources were listed in the first AFD which show the notability of the topic and prove that resources exist for improvement of the article. Someone's arbitrary time limit for perfection of or improvement of an article is not a valid basis for deletion. Any original research or unverified claims can be removed. Each song in the LOC listing of American patriotic songs is quite well documented as such. AFD is not a substitute for editing. Edison (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2008 (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.