Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oversinging

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oversinging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Oversinging is not considered a technical term. Melisma is already a well sourced and documented article. There is no reason for this article to exist beyond bias. Randompk (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This article is well referenced. Furthermore the nominator has given no reason for this article's deletion. HĐ (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Plenty of reliable references in the article already, article is being steadily improved by many contributors. See little reason to delete. Oversinging is a wider concept than Melisma. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Oversinging is not the same as melsima and, even if it were, this would be addressed by merger not deletion per our editing policy. The topic is notable - see Management of Oversinging Injury, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not the most "respectable" article, because it's about an informal concept (which is not a synonym for "melisma" at all). However, its sources as used are perfectly reliable in this context—pop music and music ed—so WP:GNG is amply met. It's not as classical-canonical as vibrato, but it's important to the people it's important to and it's not our job to say those people are ignorable. FourViolas (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2015 (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.