Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Metropolitan90, 04:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:IINFO (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)