Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Player preferences among new and old violins

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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Player preferences among new and old violins

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This article is about the publication of a scientific study that created a lot of buzz, but Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Poireau primesautier (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep (creator) from the nominator's policy : "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories.", this is not first hand reporting, it is significantly sourced by multiple secondary sources. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG with multiple secondary reliable sources, offering significant coverage. This subject also passes WP:EVENT as this is not trivial routine coverage. Additionally, content similar to this has already had long lasting coverage in articles such as Stradivarius, and while I have included summarized information in that article, it would be UNDUE to put the full information in that type of article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though not all the sources are reliable, enough of them are to establish significant coverage and notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better title might be in order, though. I'm not sure what it would be, though. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title is the title of the study, so we could perhaps add (violin study) or something like that to the title to clarify. Since there have been several studies and experiments on this topic, an additional generic article on the topic might be good too, and that could have some sort of more sensical title. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly notable. Even I have heard ot this. Studies like this are finally helping to seperate the truth from the myths in this emotion-driven field, and this study, according to the sources, is one of the most important of them. Egg Centri c 19:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep excellent article, not just a current event. Nom should reread policies. Greglocock (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - odd but neat, and well-sourced article. It's not original research, because NPR and other media outlets and secondary sources have reported on this. It's not just news, because the reporting is ongoing for more than a few months. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 12 January 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.