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 delete. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power folk[edit]

Power folk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an article about a nonnotable music genre, completely lacking references and any verifiable text. If one takes away the unverifiable claims, there is no article left. This is a contested prod, the contesting editor claiming the term is used by the website CDBaby, which does not seem like a reliable source to me.-RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because once again, we are dealing with nonnotable musical "genres," in which the term is not widely used or recognized by critics or reputable music publications. We are also dealing with a lack of references in verifiable sources. Both articles consist mostly of lists of artists who are alleged (without sources) to be examples of these genres. In the case of Avant-pop, in particular, the definition of the genre is so wide-ranging that The Beach Boys and the Beatles, The Velvet Underground and Blondie are said to be notable examples. Avant-progressive rock is not nearly so, uh, generous in its definition, but it says nothing that is not already said by the Progressive rock and Rock in Opposition articles. Delete them all as non-notable and poorly referenced.

Avant-pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Avant-progressive rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The lack of current adequate sourcing for bands listed in the articles is a content problem and not a matter for AfD. Continuous items should be flagged with [citation needed] or removed, while things that can easily be sourced should be. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to ThaddeusB: Ok, let's take these one at a time. First, "power folk." The link for the Google news stories are not really helpful, since they clearly use the term in a whole lot of different ways. Frankly, a concert review in a local paper probably got the term from the artists themselves, and that does not prove notability because the artists are not notable. The article would still lack a clear definition, and simply deciding to define established artists (The Pogues or Flogging Molly) as power folk will not fly 'cause no reputable critic has ever done so. The CDBaby link proves nothing, because sites like that are not good sources. The Rolling Stone link, though certainly reputable, uses the term in an off-handed way that gives no clear notion of what they mean by it, more like a buzz word. The larger point is, there is nothing that could be said in this article that would not be better said in the Folk rock article, which is the proper place to discuss the aforementioned bands.
Now, "avant-pop" is a somewhat more complex matter, since the term is in circulation. However, the news and book links are, once again, of very little help, since a great many of them are not about music at all. The Rolling Stone link is, again, relevant and notable, but it provides no clear meaning for the term, and the examples given are across the board. They seem to use the term as a catch-all phrase for the otherwise undefinable (Jon Hassell and Beck, amongst others), and not as a genre. Clearly, "avant-pop" is a term that is used in some circles, but its definition, just like "power folk," is elusive. No article can be encyclopædic if it lacks a definition, and it cannot have a definition if it does not have good sources which are in agreement on said definition, or, even if in disagreement, at least provide a basis for a meaningful discussion of said definition. This is clearly lacking here. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - "avant pop" is quite easy to define. It is "experimentally pop music" just like avant-garde is experimental music in generally. Neither is really a genre of music, but that doesn't mean it isn't a notable music term. The article can serve as a history of "cutting edge" pop music, which is what it currently attempts to do. Obviously it needs sourcing and needs to stick to what the sources actually say, but that isn't a matter for AfD.
As to "power folk" I agree it is a bit borderline, but think that just about all the sources are using it to say "hard hitting" or "fast paced" folk music as opposed to the usual "soft" nature of folk music. Put another way it is music played in a rock & rollish style but done with traditional folk instruments. I think there is sufficient usage to justify an article, but I wouldn't object to a merge with folk music either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both avant-progressive rock and avant-pop only feature one source inline cited on each page, and neither of them fit Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to fix them yourself, but we don't delete articles based on lack of current sourcing - if we did half the encyclopedia would disappear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Insert the sources, then. So far what I've seen hasn't established them as actual genres. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stated my reasons for the deletion of "Avant-progressive rock" and Bruce1ee has unfortunately said nothing here to rebut my statement. Anything that is said in that article is already said, or could be said, in the "progressive rock" or Rock in Opposition articles, or in the articles on the relevant bands. There is no reputable or reliable source that shows this to be a legitimate genre. As I said above in my response to ThaddeusB, a link to Google hits does not help when most of the articles are simply not relevant or not reputable. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Avant-progressive rock is defined here. Is The Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Progressive Rock not a reliable secondary source? --Bruce1eetalk 06:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. It's a fansite. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be an Avant-rock article, but it is now a redirect to Experimental rock. If a case can be made for a distinct genre called "Avant rock," and the book links you provided seem to indicate it can, I would have no problem with a redirect. But, we need to sort out the differences between "experimental," "art," "avant," and "progressive" rock. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, delete avant-progressive rock. Anything about avant-rock can be covered in that experimental rock article until or unless someone can provide a distinction between the two terms from a reliable source. --Bardin (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2009 (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.
More