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 No consensus. I'd relist, but I doubt anything more useful would come out of it: there has been plenty of discussion already. —Sean Whitton / 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New prog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is documenting a neologism. There are several sources on the page; however, only one article makes explicit use of the term as a genre name (the Times article) and even then only uses it as one of three possible terms. More often than not, the "genre" term is used in a happenstance manner (i.e. "this new prog rock..."). Moreover, many of the soures do not even use the term: the Entertainment Weekly article "Prog Rocks Again" gives various names for newer progressive rock bands and "New Prog" is not listed among them. Furthermore, the style itself is not notable, being a very limited example of recent progressive rock. DeletionAccount (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree that if all we have is a use of the term in a few places, but no article that explicitly tries to discuss this as an independent topic, then it isn't notable enough for inclusion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec)I'm going to close this as a speedy keep (unless immediately prevailed upon by someone with a real account not to do so): it's clear to me that this is either going to be kept as-is (as seems likely, given the references, and the tenor of the discussion on the article talk page), or merged and redirected, either of which I'd be perfectly happy with. The nominator has already participated in a discussion that ought to have made this clear, before popping up here with his "deletion account". What bothers me more, however, is the blatant use of throwaway accounts for such purposes, which I really see no reason at all to give house room. Alai (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator's account seems perfectly 'real' to me: the only other page they've nominated for AfD was deleted unanimously and uncontroversially. Anyway, Carl's comment above seems to be arguing for a deletion. I'm puzzled as to why you would suggest a speedy keep. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already apologized to Alai for this, but thought I'd include a note here for completeness: I failed to notice the "(ec)", which of course explains why Alai hadn't reacted to Carl's comment. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more detailed rationale for deletion. This article is an exercise in original research by synthesis. It collects uses of the term "new prog" in certain music articles about bands, and uses those quotes to make an article on new prog itself, rather than on the bands. The problem with this is clear from an OR point of view.

Moreover, there are no sources given that actually on the topic of "new prog" itself, as would be required for notability. Incidental mentions in other works don't suffice for WP:N here.

Detailed examination of the sources provided shows that many of them only use the phrase "the new prog". Examples:

• "Musically and lyrically, the new prog is not your father's prog,"
• "Evidence is mounting that we're on the brink of a New Prog Age,..."
• "... popular music now encompasses a vast range of sounds and bands, from Slipknot's nu-metal to Atomic Kitten's teeny pop and the 'new prog' of Radiohead."
• "The new prog? Post-rock? PRR enjoy a variety of labels that fail to encapsulate them and this single is no exception:..."
• "But are the new proggies the true heirs to the thrones of Yes, Genesis and King Crimson?"
• "The new prog doesn't yet have an official name (neo-prog? post-prog? prog 2.0?),..."

These articles are not trying to define something called "new prog"; they are just using the adjective "new" to describe the type of prog that certain bands represent. As a thought experiment, imagine if I wrote an article on the "next mayor of town" by accumulating all the news articles that use the term "next mayor".

The final quote above is particularly telling. If the music industry itself has not settled on a name for this genre (or, indeed, decided that it isn't just the next stage of prog rock itself), we are only speculating by collecting their quotes and making an article on "new prog". These things need to be settled in the real world before we try to write an article about them on Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also 'New Prog Heroes', 'the so-called front-runners of the "new-prog" movement', which seem clearly non-incidental usages, especially the latter. Numerous genre tags are formed by this sort of "new", "post-" and similar malarkey, and obviously are often used in ways that the modifier could be read as being non-atomic. Sources that assert that this is a valid concept, but with a non-stable name are likewise not compelling arguments for deletion, just for noting said terminological variation. You make some valid points about the rigour of the current article text, none of which in my view comes close to a case for turning new prog into a redlink, which is the issue we're being asked to consider here. Bear in mind that we've significant internal linkage to the term as a genre descriptor, so we'd not be making a non-local change: if those descriptors are poorly-referenced, better to clean those up first. (On which good luck: I suspect the pecentage of musical articles in which the infobox-genre field coincides with a consensus of reliable sources (which see below) is somewhere between 'small' and 'statistically significant'.) As I've said, I'd be perfectly happy to merge into the main prog article and redirect, which would have been better accomplished by continuing the discussion there (rather than ignoring the point being made there, and using a throwaway SP account to go venue-shopping here). As I said there, the main issue here is not occurrence of the terminology, neologism, or referencing, but whether this is sufficiently separately notable and coherent a concept to merit a distinct article, as against a section or discussion in passing in progressive rock. Alai (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the issue is the independent notability of this concept, or lack of that notability. My point in the above quotes is that the sources in the article only mention the name of the article incidentally, and don't discuss "new prog" itself in any way. If this article deleted, that doesn't stop merging some text to the main prog rock article and redirecting the title there. Indeed, that's one possible outcome of the deletion discussion. The point of the AFD is to discuss the independent notability of this particular concept. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could, of course, merge certain things into Progressive rock -- after all, there are a mountain of sources referring to these bands as prog rock -- but the question here is not whether these bands are prog rock or notable. The question is whether or not this article is documenting a neologism and non-notable style. More importantly, if you dig around, you'll find dramatically-different views about what new prog is. That is, at best, as noted below, "new prog" is just prog that is new. Is it Dillinger Escape Plan or is it Muse or is it Lightning Bolt or is it Porcupine Tree? These bands have much of nothing in common aside from era -- a common problem for neologisms. It is, of course, possible that the term will become notable, but for now it's just a term meaning prog rock that is new. As the EW article notes, "the new prog doesn't yet have an official name (neo-prog? post-prog? prog 2.0?)" -- no new-prog to be seen there, and an admission that the "new prog" genre here is just a prog rock revival similar to the original neo-prog. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Clearly mostly of them are primarily about an album or a band, but for example the Times "Prog rock? Just say yes" is clearly discussing it as a concept (at least in passing, before wallowing in general proggy nostalgia at some length). "Prog Rocks Again" is not dissimilar in that respect. Deletion is not part of the merge-and-redirect process, unless there's some compelling reason for expunging the edit history, which I think is clearly not going to be the case here. It's a possible outcome from AFD only in (dare I say) an "incidental" manner, by way of being a "keep with words to the wise" result. (Thus my frustration with the on-going having in effect been discussion inefficiently and foreseeably ineffectually moved to this location, and thence to several others.) Whether merged or not, some suitably-sourced hedging as to whether it is really is a 'distinct' genre, or just "recent instances" of prog (or whatever else), would seem to be appropriate. I don't think Wikipedia should be attempting to come to a definitive conclusion on that at present, and certainly this discussion can't hope to. Alai (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it's not a question of whether or not there are new prog rock bands. There are, and there have been new prog rock bands for every decade since the original prog rock appeared. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; it will never decide what is or is not a distinct genre. Wikipedia merely documents, and the documentation here is dubious. We see 543 hits on Google News and maybe 50 of them refer to music (and of them, most talk about Entertainment Weekly's May 2005 feature which this article references and the rest talk about "new prog rock"). Not to wikilawyer, but from WP:NEO: "If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use." Furthermore, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." And finally, "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." The point here is indeed to redlink the article. If there is notable information about progressive rock artists, it can be placed in the progressive rock article, but not under the heading of a neologism and not as a WP:OR genre. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl's claim that there are no articles specifically on this genre is wrong: The Times article is one such, as Alai says above. Bondegezou (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded below. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make a point here. First, the real article minus obvious synthesis can be found on my user-talk. All I did here was remove unreferenced statements and references which did not mention the "new prog" genre or refer to the bands as members of the genre (most simply called them progressive rock).

And here's what's worse: the sources are dramatically incoherent. EW calls the music aggressive and technical, citing SOAD, Dillinger Escape Plan, Lightning Bolt, Coheed and Cambria, and The Mars Volta. They specifically refer to how aggressive the music is -- "[They] create incredibly complex and inventive music that sounds like a heavier, more aggressive version of '70s behemoths such as Led Zeppelin and King Crimson." Now, take The Guardian Unlimited: "However much Radiohead and Muse may revile their "new prog" tag, their music is as aloof, intellectual and didactic as anything Pink Floyd or King Crimson produced." For those of you not aware, neither of those bands fit EW's description. Then we have the Times, which draws reference to old symphonic prog. Slightly inconsistent, perhaps? Is anyone talking about the same thing? Is it a genre or is it a period? Or is a it a "genre" that happens to exist because "new prog" is just too easy to inadvertently coin? 81.51.232.219 (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All names for new music styles are inherently neologisms, and arguments about notability are nearly always original research by synthesis - you find the material, count the reliable sources, add them together, and discuss what they mean. In this case the sources add up to show notability for this sub-genre. It's two years old apparently, long enough to judge lasting notability. If there's a better or more widely used name than "new prog" we should just move the article. If we already have an article about this style / trend, then of course we should merge it. Conceivably this is just a sub-topic within prog rock, in which case it could be merged that way. That's a style question of how best to organize content here, not really a deletion issue. Wikidemo (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain exactly what you found in the sources that led you to that conclusion? When I looked through them, all I saw were throwaway references, like the ones I quoted above. I couldn't find, for example, any article that actually gave any sort of definition of new prog. I agree names for new music genres are inherently neologisms, but sometimes there is at least a published article on the neologism. In this case, none of the references seemed to me to fit the burden of direct coverage in WP:GNG. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) :Follow-up - 122,000 ghits[1] and 500+ news hits,[2]. It looks like snowball notability. This one[3] (though not the most significant) indicates that music professionals use it as a real term to describe the style. This one[4] isn't necessarily a significant mention either but by classifying Radiohead in the group it takes the style back at least to 2001. This is significant coverage (an LA times article about the movement) and seems to date it from the early 90s.[5] Wikidemo (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source [6] is not a reliable source; we can't use a vending page as a source for an article with a straight face. More interesting is the final source you linked, as "significant coverage", which says "The new prog-rock movement began in the early '90s, right around the time that Nirvana was making punk safe for mall rats. " As I was saying above, it appears it is just using new as an adjective for discussing developments in progressive rock, and is not about an independent subject called "new prog". This is the issue with using search hits to try to measure notability - both "new single" and "new mayor" would also get a lot of news hits, but I doubt that they are notable concepts either.
      I think this article is trying to be something like British invasion, discussing a specific period in music history. But just as the British invasion was only recognized in hindsight, this topic can't be written about today before art historians have had a chance to write about it first. That's the fundamental issue here - we're trying to predict the future. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that you mention it, the article makes mention of the difference between New Prog and Neo Prog, which is a period movement in the 80s following the decline of popularity of traditional prog rock. Still, I think the article is describing what is supposed to be a new genre in itself. My first encounter with this term was actually with the Mars Volta article. However, Mars Volta isn't mentioned in the article, and neither was Radiohead before I noted that one cited source was talking about bands related to Radiohead. If it's a genre, it's not an established one. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm Undecided here: Carl makes a persuasive argument that most of the offered sources are using the phrase the way one might 'new mayor' and don't imply an actual genre of any notability. The Guardian article [7] is the one exception, which seems to suggest that it is a legitimate phrase in its own right (but it hardly tells us anything useful to build an article from except that Muse and Radiohead are examples). If I saw a few more sources sounding like that one, but which actually described the genre, I'd be convinced it should stay; otherwise, I don't think so since we can't be sure we're not attributing characteristics to 'New Prog' that some journalist just happens to have mention in connection with recent prog-rock. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, this is "situation normal" in music journalism. By the time an alleged genre has a useful or coherent definition, or even agreed-upon terminology, it's likely no longer trendy enough to be worth writing about. That a couple of the articles advance different terminology for the same thing (or some similar thing, at least, given the denotational fuzziness at work here) is some sort of evidence for the notability of the concept, rather than simply the precise phrase, which argues against the "incidental construction" interpretation (at least to some extent). Alai (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the British invasion is an example where a past movement has sufficient notability to still warrant an article. We aren't trying to mirror the latest trends here - we're trying to reflect what has already been established by reliable sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Times article is clearly describing a genre and the term is used distinctly from simply describing recent prog rock bands (e.g. its usage clustering around certain bands and not other bands). Bondegezou (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responded at bottom. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article has been in existence and actively edited for over 2 years since I first created it. It has equivalents in the German and Polish-language Wikipedias. It has numerous citations: while some of these may be ambiguous in whether they mean "new prog" as a distinct genre name or just prog that is new, articles in The Times and The Guardian, clearly reliable sources, as well as the Pop Matters review certainly use the term as a genre label. There has been a fair amount of discussion at Talk:New_prog and Talk:New_Prog about this article that I would recommend people in this debate read those Talk pages. Bondegezou (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to pass WP:GNG, the articles would have to directly discuss the label, not just use it once in passing before moving on. The core of the OR#SYNTH problem is taking these passing mentions, which don't actually say what "new prog" is, and trying to make an article from them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't read Polish, but the German came from the English Wikipedia (translated edit summary was "Stub, from English Wikipedia" for any non-German-speakers here). It is also but 2 1/2 months old. The Polish one seems to be a more direct translation from the English wiki page, retaining all formatting. Since they all originated here, I don't think it's valid to consider them at all. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can I clarify? 81.51.232.219, are you the same as DeletionAccount? That two other Wikipedias felt this article was worthy of inclusion seems evidence of something! I would also point out the large number of articles that link to New prog.[8] I think that again argues against accusations of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Bondegezou (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this edit serves as confirmation of that, as well as comments with a similar implication elsewhere. (To say nothing of the seamlessly-splenetic comments in my own direction from the two.) Alai (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, to be clear, I am indeed the nominator of this. I cannot debate using the account because it was blocked for apparently looking like an administrator name. As for the articles that link, how about j-pop albums from L'Arc-en-Ciel and various other bands which aspire to the "new prog" title (who are Mr. So & So and why are they new prog when new prog didn't exist?) and so on. You have lists of genres and redirects related to the post-prog article which was deleted and some stuff related to this AfD, but for the most part the references to the article are limited to a few bands and their albums as well as genre lists and see-also mentions, like on the Post-rock page. The pages referencing New prog are very limited in scope. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • What other types of pages would you expect to link here than articles on bands, albums and related genres? That a large number of pages do link here (~90), the consequence of many different editors, seems of some relevance to the case that this is a healthy Wikipedia article. If L'Arc-en-Ciel should not link here -- I've no idea; I've never heard of them -- then edit that article accordingly. Bondegezou (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sourced ones. First, we discount general discussion pages like the WP:Articles for deletion/Post-prog article and those others which do not actually source them. Then we remove the 7 bands listed here and their albums (about 40 pages total). What's left? L'Arc-en-Ciel albums listed as new prog, all additions to pages done by an IP editor in one day (it just happens that nobody ever questioned it). This is a common problem with tags like this: a random editor goes into rarely-visited pages and places his opinion (no sources needed) and it is never questioned. Mr. So & So had this link in its original inception by an SPA called Mrsoandso which had its user page purged because it was an advertisement for the band and the page was filled with copyvio. Lord only knows what good that article is. You see, the point is that, besides the few bands listed on the page, there are not good pages linking to New prog. Lists are almost never good articles, invariably focusing on quantity over quality (and every time I try to get a list to start citing, I get complaints about it). That leaves only see-also mention at various other pages, mostly added by IPs and dramatically contradictory. Did you know that Los Hermanos, People in Planes, and Battles are all examples of New prog? Nor do the bands, as none of their pages link to them, but the Indie rock page cites them as examples. Herein lies the problem: the genre is smoke and mirrors, so people add whatever they feel like adding (I think this sounds like Coheed and Cambria, which somebody said was, like, the New prog, so I'm, um, adding it). 81.51.232.219 (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Responding to comments above: the Times article [9] is indeed about a genre - the genre of "prog rock", not the genre of "new prog". The article mentions the phrase "new prog" only twice. The first time, they say "The sound of 2006 will be called — in fact, already has been called — new prog, prog moderne, or crazy prog, which is a funny title, but not terribly descriptive. " The second time, they say, "There is a huge amount of Schadenfreude to be derived from watching the current crop of music rags trying to wax appropriately enthusiastic about the new prog without mentioning the P-word too often.". The word "the" in the second quote there makes it clear that they are using new as an adjective, and are not envisioning "new prog" as a genre on its own. This is exactly the "new mayor" issue I mentioned before. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first use is clearly as a genre name; that there are synonyms doesn't detract from that. The second use looks like a genre name too: surely one wouldn't have the "the" if one was just talking about prog that was new? Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg to differ. You might note that the title of the article is "Prog rock? Just say yes" and not "New prog? Just say yes". A similar and equally silly synthesis of the article would be "New prog is the sound of 2006 and is incredibly bright." The context of the use of "new prog" is in regards to upcoming commercially-successful bands in the progressive rock genre, a genre which has long dodged commercial success. The article goes in all ways about this: "There is a huge amount of Schadenfreude to be derived from watching the current crop of music rags trying to wax appropriately enthusiastic about the new prog without mentioning the P-word too often." Similarly, he says "[The Mystery Jets] sound like a prog primer" and spends the entire article discussing new bands of the progressive rock genre and their relation to the 70s prog rockers, not a new sound or a new genre. And furthermore, the use of "the" actually denotes that it is not a genre -- he is speaking of the new prog rock (i.e. the prog rock that is new). Were he speaking of a genre, he'd leave out the article -- English conventions say that proper nouns displace the article (for example, you say "John" and "Germany", not "The John" or "the Germany", but you say "the man" and "the house" rather than just "man" or "house". He is very tangibly referring to the new prog, not to a genre called "new prog". 81.51.232.219 (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first usage in the article is clearly as a genre name, so the details of the second usage are somewhat moot, but I think your application of grammar is questionable. We talk about the New Romantics, for example. Bondegezou (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The first usage, however, only refers to what someone else had said. It doesn't significantly or directly discuss "new prog" as a subject. Where is the "significant coverage" required for WP:GNG? What article directly addresses the subject of "new prog", rather than just discussing prog rock that happens to be new, as the Times article does? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The first mention is just of what someone else has called it, as CBM mentioned. It's a mention-in-passing, and the rest of the article discusses prog rock. That does not meet the requirements set forth by WP:NEO of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." We just have one too many articles describing "new progressive rock" and none describing the genre "New Prog". Furthermore, the lack of established notability results in massive confusion as to what this genre is -- is it aggressive hard rock like Dillinger Escape Plan or is it slower prog rock like Muse? Was it established in the early 1990s or in 2001 with System of a Down? What the Sam Hill is this genre? If we don't have reliable sources on the subject, Wikipedia has no business trying to synthesize an article out of it. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • • • The Times article is not about prog rock in general, but about a particular group of bands that it lumps under the name "new prog", ergo it is an article about new prog and satisfies WP:GNG. Most of the citations in the article agree on a common set of bands (like Mew, PRR, Coheed, Muse). If there is some disagreement among sources as to the genre's boundaries, then the article should reflect that, but it is WP:OR for us to start judging the genre in that manner! Several of the citations only make passing reference to the term but that's because they are there to support the inclusion of particular bands in the list (surely an admirable thing in a Wikipedia article). Bondegezou (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Times article itself never calls the bands "new prog". It calls them "the new prog", in which "new" is just an adjective, and it says other people have used the label "new prog" - but without knowing who those people are or exactly what they said, we don't know if the other people also used "new" as an adjective. The Times article never uses "new prog" as if it were an established genre. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let's review the text of the article, shall we? First the title and subtitle. "Prog rock? Just say yes" -- nothing about New prog. Subtitled: "For decades the ancient behemoths of progressive rock were the butt of critics' jokes. But thanks to new bands like the Mystery Jets, the sound is back". This suggests that prog rock is back. No, not a new genre. Prog rock. Let's for a moment ignore the small text and continue to the body of the article. The editor begins talking... about progressive rock. Not about "new prog". The first paragraph is about the stigma surrounding the use of the word "prog". Makes use of "the new prog" in a way indicating that new is an adjective rather than part of a proper noun. The next paragraph: "they sound like a prog primer". A litany of references to old prog rock. Still no "new prog". Next two paragraphs: same story. More references to old prog, still no "new prog". Then two wishy-washy paragraphs. Next, speaking about the return of progressive music: "Rees sees a progression towards progressive..." and so forth. Now, another grand line clearing the air: "It was just such an environment that led to the rise of prog first time round." That very, very, very clearly says that he's talking about progressive rock and not "new prog". He re-iterates this with "[T]he Jets will have to rely on the sort of audience that once wandered around with records conspicuously tucked under their arms." And on and on and on about new progressive rock bands and their relation to old progressive rock bands (i.e. "the sound is back"). Thus, I can only conclude that your entire premise for the article hinges on the small text at the top of a Times article which is rather vague to begin with. So let's clear that little hurdle, shall we? "The sound of 2006 will be terribly bright." Uh-huh. "It will have practised its instruments hard, will have taken lessons, and will have assimilated all the best influences from the classics, rock, jazz and pop." Yes, apparently. "And lo! The sound of 2006 will be called — in fact, already has been called — new prog, prog moderne..." The mention in passing of "new prog" which is not specifically referring to a genre called "New Prog" but rather to the label "new prog" meaning new progressive rock. Continuing, "...or crazy prog, which is a funny title, but not terribly descriptive. There is nothing crazy about prog." This once again suggests that he's talking about progressive rock. Not a new genre. Just progressive rock. So breaking this whole thing down into its constituent parts, your justification for calling this a main source which passes WP:GNG is a mention in passing of something which may or may not even be a proper reference to a genre at all? That's quite a leap of faith, sir. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Other articles refer to "new prog" as a genre, so that is not in doubt. Knowing "new prog" is used as a genre name, The Times article is clearly about that genre. Interpreting the article in a vacuum, in the absence of the knowledge that "new prog" is used as a genre descriptor, is misleading. The article is about a group of bands that others also lump together and associate with the "new prog" tag; it is not an article about modern progressive rock bands in general. "New prog" is clearly related to older progressive rock, so of course older prog is mentioned in the article. As I have repeatedly said, "new ..." is a terrible way of naming things because of the confusion it causes, but we don't get to pick names: Wikipedia can but report how reliable sources are using terms. Bondegezou (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So you're saying that, since other articles may refer to "new prog" as a genre and this article talks about bands associated with this genre (in their relation to progressive rock), the article must be about "new prog" and thus serve as your source? That would absolutely be WP:SYNTH. There is no indication that the Times article is about "new prog" but rather merely about new progressive rock groups (i.e. the sound is back). These bands just happen to be the bands achieving some scale of commercial success, which, as the article details, has eluded progressive rock for decades. It would make sense, then, to write about the bands bringing prog back into the mainstream (which he does focus on in the middle of the article -- "It was just such an environment that led to the rise of prog first time round." and "Is there any reason to hope for a similar golden age in 2006?"). Long story short, still fails WP:NEO. --Same anon as before, new IP 83.203.183.112 (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All of the bands mentioned as belonging to this supposed 'genre' would be mortified to be included. None of them claims to have invented the genre, this being done by some supposed music journalist. To be clearer, none of the bands mentioned are ground-breaking in terms of the music they play, simply following on old formulae based on the 12-note 4/4 scale. Indeed, most of the bands quote 70's influences, which was l a long time before some bright spark came up with the term 'new prog'Sam Smallish 10:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsmallish (talk • contribs)
  • Criticism of the genre is irrelevant. Your claim that the bands concerned would be mortified to be included is questionable (PRR and Mystery Jets seem happy with the tag), but again irrelevant as opposed to use of the term in reliable sources (e.g., for comparison, Robert Fripp still denies that King Crimson are progressive rock, but that doesn't stop Wikipedia following reliable sources and describing them as such). Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preface: Same anon as before, yet another IP. I'm with Bondegezou on this one. While I still think the page deserves deletion, what anyone thinks of the label is actually irrelevant. The review listed for Oceansize is quite critical of the style (welcome back, prog; how we have missed the media's distaste for you!). It is an objective observer's opinion which typically defines a genre. Season's End would like to call itself progressive symphonic metal, but they are very rarely regarded as such. Nonetheless, I deviate from the subject. The problem with the page is that it synthesizes sources into an article. "New prog" may be used in some circles to refer to certain progressive rock bands, but the term has not caught wide use, as evidenced by the failure to find a source about the genre (except, maybe, the Rhapsody page which sources itself to this Wikipedia article). More importantly, the message at the top is quite telling: (sometimes called "Nu prog" or "post-prog"). Look around and you might find minimal coverage for either of these tags, but what you do find is classic stuff: urbandictionary in its infinite nonsense lists a bundle of prog metal bands, as does this little disaster. If there was any confusion about what this "genre" is, research will only amplify it. Again, that's standard operating procedure for neologisms. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might also be worthy of note that many articles refer to these "new prog" bands as "progressive rock". New York Daily News reports: "Prog-rock has been revived of late in bands like Coheed and Cambria and the Mars Volta. Such acts rely on home recording and the Internet to keep control of what they do, from conception through sales and touring." Just throwing more wood on the fire. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not certain how that's relevant. Neo-prog bands also get described as "progressive rock", but that doesn't stop the sub-genre from having meaning too. Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Neo-progressive rock was a period movement in progressive rock history. New prog is not. Not to mention the British invasion problem set forth by CBM above. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (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.