Deletion of List of honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination)

Comment: Although the article has a large number of sources, many of them are insufficient to support the claims they are associated with. The problem is that if one is trying to establish that a musician is known by one of these honorific titles, a single citation is not enough to do that. A phrase isn't the musician's nickname unless the musician is referred to by that phrase numerous times, not just once or a few times. And this article doesn't differentiate between titles supported by long-standing usage and titles applied by a single writer in a single article. To put it another way, if you saw a headline that said, "Former employees reveal King of Pop's secrets," you probably would know who it was about. "Former employees reveal King of Rap's secrets," you wouldn't. "Queen of Soul announces 20-city tour," you probably would know who it was about. "Queen of Pop announces 20-city tour," you wouldn't. That's because "Michael Jackson|King of Pop" and "Aretha Franklin|Queen of Soul" are indeed titles associated with particular artists, and "King of Rap" and "Queen of Pop" aren't so associated. I don't know if the supporters of this article plan to narrow down the list accordingly. And if the article is meant to include all honorific titles for popular musicians, without differentiating between the common nicknames and the one-time references, then it's |indiscriminate information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: I contend that the topic of "honorific titles in popular music" does not exist. It is simply not a topic that is treated as the subject of substantive reliable sources '''as a topic in its own right''' and would be deleted under Notability and parts of No Original Research. Given this, a list such as this amounts to |original synthesis of various bits of trivia. As mentioned above somewhere, were a category to exist under this title it would be immediately deleted. The selection criterion is not a meaningful categorisations of the subject matter at hand. Nicknames/honorific titles, especially used as indiscriminately as in this article ("title of a magazine article? oh yes, let's put it in!"), is not a meaningful way to group musicians together. Regards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: The argument that it is well sourced is not a valid one and the fact that it has many citations is deceptive, as it is clear that most of the sources are being misused. This clearly fails "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article" at . This is not an isolated phenomenon but occurs throughout the article. The title of the article is also highly problematic, it is not clear that these are "honorific titles" and even those that are not misused descriptions are mainly simple "nick names" or merely marketing tools. The two articles that underpin the lead are also dubious. They do not clearly and unambiguously set this out as a phenomenon, but are little more than lightweight news stories, which are being elevated here to act like academic sources or commentary of similar value. The article does not demonstrate that this is a widely accepted or discussed phenomenon and so is really very close to producing a synthesis (). I agree with the proposer that the handful of "titles" that are in regular use should simply be given in their own articles, this article adds nothing valid, and simply encourages pointless listing and misuse of sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:BURDEN||WP:SYN)