Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitschrock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. WjBscribe 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kitschrock

Kitschrock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A musical genre, made up by a band one day, that no other bands (AFAIK) claim to be in. Too obscure to be notable, no references, and seemingly original research. Google does not help much. An option is to give it a slight mention in the band's article, but either way I say delete. →EdGl 21:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete One band, however famous, do not a musical genre make. A genre can only be considered notable when other bands and the music media are using the term - and a simple google search shows quite plainly that this is not the case. A1octopus 23:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, this is definitely not made up one day, and it certainly exists. See here, here, here and here for mentions from reliable sources such as The New York Times and other newspapers. And that was just a preliminary search. That said, this article is obviously inaccurate in its references or at least its original research. So it's probably even more deeply flawed than just made up one day by a band. But as per the other arguments, it looks as though the genre exists but was not made up by the band. All that said, I don't know if we should delete this or not -- I don't think there are any articles specifically about the genre... If the LexisNexis links expire, by the way, I'll find some other way to save them. Rockstar915 04:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the insight. Unfortunately, this web.nlexis-nexis site requires login, and I cannot view the contents. →EdGl 04:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not a problem. I'll give this another shot. Remember, I'm still neutral on the topic. I'm just trying to show that this genre exists and is indeed a genre. Whether it's notable enough to deserve its own page is questionable, but then again, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Also, it should be pointed out that a lot of the information in the article is factually inaccurate and the genre has at least a few notable bands (Meat Loaf and Ratt, to mention two). I'm not tied to this article in any way, but I don't want it to be deleted for the wrong reasons. The articles below are just a few that I found per my LexisNexis search and then retrieved from the newspaper's website. There are indeed more where this came from, and there were even more that I couldn't retrieve from the newspapers' websites because of time archives.
So take a look and we should evaluate it from there. :) Rockstar915 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To me it seems like this word is a neologism, which we "ought to avoid", but with references such as yours, it is certainly possible for "inclusionists" to make a valid "keep" argument. However, I think a possible merge into Kitsch is probably the most suitable. I simply don't see the potential for this article to expand to more than a several-sentence stub. What say you (Rockstar, and everyone)? →EdGl 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ooh, I like your idea to merge it into kitsch. I think it would actually fit perfectly into one of the sub-sections. As of right now, however, I would say that don't think it's in any shape to merge. Maybe we should delete it and then rewrite it into the kitsch article? Or else we could just throw in a few sentences from the kitschrock article into kitch. But I agree, I'm still not convinced it deserves its own page, especially after looking at the kitsch article. So I think I'm going to officially vote merge into kitsch. Rockstar915 04:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think this is more of a neologism than an actual genre. Either way, I agree with the above that this article is OR and basically unusable. A nicely sourced addition to kitsch is certainly possible, but I would just start over.--Kubigula (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't understand -- there exist reliable sources about the genre, so technically it is not a neologism. Sure, it needs cleanup and probably a merge, but why suggest delete? Rockstar915 02:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, read the opening sentence (or paragraph) at WP:NEO; despite some coverage, it could still be considered a "neologism." The word "protologism" may be what you were thinking of. →EdGl 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - probably all musical genre names started as neologisms ("heavy metal", "rock and roll" to name a few). However, one problem with neologisms is that there may be used in the media, but until they reach a certain critical mass, the definition is still up for grabs. I can't read all your sources, but what I do see corroborates the use of the term - though perhaps not in the way this article suggests. I think adding something to the kitsch article (based on the sources you have found) would be great. I just wouldn't use anything from this article unless it happens to coincide with the sources. So, more precisely, my suggestion is to delete, redirect and add something to kitsch based on what you have found, if you are inclined to do the editing there.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kubigula. It's strange that some of the sources seem to be referring to some recognized genre apparently known as kitsch rock (e.g. the NYT's characterization of Grease as "the pimply grandsire of the kitsch-rock musical") but I can't find any sources that actually describe what kitsch rock is supposed to be. Pan Dan 17:33, 12 April 2007 (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.