Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The list of one-artist genres

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. clear consensus here JForget 21:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The list of one-artist genres The list of musical artists who coined a term for their own music

The list of one-artist genres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

unmaintainable list based on information from the bands themselves (primary sources) RadioFan (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Different facts require different kinds of sources. Claims like "this band is the best example of foobar" or "this band virtually founded a new genre" surely cannot be based on primary sources. But claims like "this band call themselves barfoo" can.Netrat (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And what do yopu mean by "unmaintainable"? Netrat (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly entry. Calling your band's music "barfoo" does not somehow mean that there is a musical genre called barfoo; this is marketing more than anything else. (Also, I'm pretty certain there are lots of dub-metal bands, so your list is down to two....) Hairhorn (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly! This is the list of genres that are not actual ganres, but terms coined by a particular artist. This list does not make a cliam that such genres do actually exist. It's introduction clearly states that critics usually do not consider such term to be real genres - that's why we don't have articles for "genres" like SID Metal. Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And clling this "marketing more than anything else" is the classic case of original research. Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• LOL, you're supposed to do research in an AfD discussion. Hairhorn (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Categorise This is something a category could hold better than an article. treelo _radda 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I don't see this task can done by a category. If there would be Category:Musical artists who coined a term for their music, it would not show the reader the name of the "genre". I don't see why a categoy would be better than a list. Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'll agree than an category wouldn't do for this but not for the reasons you state. I will take issue however with how these genre-definers need a list, I'd figure that if they were notable in their own right it could be mentioned within their articles. I'm thinking that the rename doesn't really help with the idea this is a means of collating a easily limitless list of non-notable genres and the bands which created them. Consider my !vote switched to Delete as this article is little more than an exercise in ego-stroking and low level advertising for a given artist(s)' shtick. If a genre becomes notable then an article can be created regarding it, this seems to be jumping the gun a touch. treelo _radda 12:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 13:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. If there is such a thing as one-artist genres then they need to be verified by reliable independent sources, which this list doesn't have. Quantpole (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Why, there's a 3rd party source for wizard rock. In fact, this is more "artists who coined a genre name" rather than "one-artist genres". The later is informal term, but I guess everyone understands what it means. Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly and unprovable (or at least very difficult to maintain). Was pleasantly surprised to see one of my favourite bands listed however! Rehevkor ✉ 15:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Silly" is not a valid argument (sounds more like protest). And why do you call it "unprovable"? If a 3rd party album review or the band's official web-site states "they prefer to call their genre foobar, a term they invented themselves", than a band is included. Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not provable because they may not be the first or only band to use the term. There is more than one SID metal band out there for example. Rehevkor ✉ 00:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be a clear example of listcruft to me. If not that, it's difficult to verify. --Tckma (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The very nature of the word "genre" requires more than one. So the statement that a band has established a new genre is something said for effect, not literal meaning, and so can not be the basis of an encyclopedia article. Borock (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but have you read the actual list? It clearly states that it lists terms that are not actual genres. Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not verifiable, made up, etc. Triplestop x3 20:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note Would renaming the list to "The list of musical artists who coined a term for their own music" help? Netrat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Renamed. Hopefully this clears things up. Netrat (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, all the confusions are gone, but the newly named list is simply not notable. Re-affirming my delete vote, sorry. Hairhorn (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you believe this is not notable? Such coined terms are usually mentioned in the very introduction of corresponding article. Check Machinae Supremacy for example. Netrat (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

These are names the bands made up themselves. Sources are primary ones, and the terms are essentially made up and is the list is approaching an advert--RadioFan (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Such coined terms are usually mentioned in the very introduction of corresponding article, and thus are notable. Netrat (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - It's snowing Shadowjams (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This sounds like "other people are saying "delete", so I would say the same". Do you have your OWN arguments? Netrat (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Retain - for what purpose do you need different kinds of sources-look at the name of the article who coined a term for their own music - what other sources in addition to primary ones are needed in this case??? The article is not very big but it will be in some time. --Slav9ln (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not just WP:NN & WP:NEO, but frankly, silly. Not sure why this isn't speedy as per WP:SNOW. Ben Aveling 10:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Silly" is not a valid argument. As for WP:NN & WP:NEO, let me read it... Netrat (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't see what these rules have to do with this particular list. This is not a violation of WP:NEO, since I'm not trying to classify these bands with the terms they invented. My list cleary says it lists terms that are not real muscia genres. Netrat (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• There are many "silly" things in this world. And many of them are realy important. So, it's a "silly" argument. Also I can't realise any difficulties to find 3rd side sources: reviews, interviews and so on. Keep --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. A "genre" of one isn't a genre at all. Re-titling listcruft doesn't make it more legitimate. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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.