Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music jury

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. Tim Song (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music jury

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

Fails WP:DICTDEF, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 2 says you, says two 19:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe this could find a home in the Wiktionary. Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems absurd as this is in no way a dictionary entry - not a word, no etymology, no examples of usage, no pronunciation, no lexical analysis. The article might be expanded to include details of the Pulitzer music jury as well as Juillard as this appears in numerous sources. And then there are the juries such as found in Juke Box Jury. Lots of potential... Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Only the first line is definitional, this is not a dicdef article. Music juries are used in many prestigious musical conservatories. This stub is a small, but good, start, to having an article on the subject. I stumbled across this article to correct the misspelling of "Juilliard" (a fetish of mine), and was pleased enough that the article had been started to spend some time making some nonsubstantive edits to tidy it up. It should be expanded, not deleted. TJRC (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A music jury is a definate thing. I now know more about them then I did before reading the article. (I thought it was going to be about shows like American Idol and I was prepared to delete.) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: some sources exist covering the subject; not a dicdef. Possible merge candidate, but I'm unaware of any suitable target. Robofish (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 03:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. There's no way that a full article will ever be created on this subject. SnottyWong talk 22:48, 9 June 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.