Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New prog (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 merge to Progressive rock. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 18:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New_prog

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
New_prog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This genre page is complete nonsense, without a real reason to keep it and the bands in here are nowhere near in sound nor in the theatrics, the usage of instruments and so on. Filas312 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for New Prog[reply]

There is not a reason to keep the article, especially as an independent one, since all that "new prog" in articles just marks up the bands kind of influenced by "old" prog, which isnt a genre name, more of a "markup" of new wave of prog bands. I've heard those bands, they're nowhere close in anything and genre kind of "catches" bands which have something in similiar. In short, it's an idea of journalists which has no sense from the point of music itself, music articles should be done by people with some music knowledge. We can't categorize bands by the influences, TMV and Muse, those present a very diverse and not even close style of music. The articles aren't cited properly. I spent time reading previous debate and I can prettt much agree with first nominator, since we can't put bands in here on some journalist's basis. Music is very subjective, you know and that kills objectivity. Filas312 (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have to abide by Wikipedia's principles: those are that we go on what reliable sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can You define a reliable source? Everything what journalist write go by their rules and isn't defined reliable or unreliable. For most genres we've got "steel" rules, or time periods which markup movements and stuff. For this, well, it's just a neologism used by some authors. I don't agree that those specified are reliable. I'm still against this article, just because it doesn't fit any real sources, just some articles and what critics and journalists make up is up to them. Anyways, what defines progressive? Let's try to answer that question first. And what can be called post-progressive? Prog is such a genre which just evolves and it can't be defined as-is. Also, those so-called reliable sources are goddamn subjective, it's all up to people to write whatever they want to. I thought Wikipedia is ought to be true, not do-what-you-want? Also, I thought that articles should be talking about a genre, not using the term. Well, few broken rules in here. Filas312 (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is nothing strong against removal so I suggest getting this deleted as I've specified above. The article is kinda WP:SYNTH . Filas312 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/delete Without wishing to be guilty of WP:OWN, let me begin by saying that I created this article and have edited it most. I have previously argued for its retention (see the first AfD). I also disagree with Filas312's arguments above. Music genres are slippery things, they are highly subjective, but I think the way of dealing with that is to stick closely to Wikipedia policies like WP:RS. However, I'm going to ignore a straightforward application of Wikipedia policy and present an argument for this article's abolition (albeit through merger into Progressive rock rather than deletion).
It is my sense that there was a specific group of European bands coming from indie origins that came to embrace prog stylings, bands like Pure Reason Revolution and Mew, and that people sought to label this nascent genre. Various labels were bandied around, including "new prog". The first issue is that, obviously, the construction of "new x" is a difficult one -- it's not always clear when it is being used as a genre label and when it's just two words being used literally -- but there are things that are called "new x" which have a specific meaning, like "New Romantics", "New Labour", "NWOBHM". However, as a genre label, "new prog" perhaps struggled.
Anyway, I entirely believe that, for a while, a number of people were using "new prog" to refer to a specific group of acts, and this comes through in a couple of reliable source articles, so cited. However, this genre label hasn't garnered wide usage; it hasn't stuck. I'm not seeing any more recent articles using "new prog" to refer to this original group of bands. Here is a term that was on the verge of notability, that doesn't seem to have endured.
In the mean time, what has happened to this article is that well-meaning fans of any recent prog rock band list their favourite band here (without a citation) and then I come along, sooner or later, and remove said band (for not having a citation). This seems to me to constitute a pathological pattern of editing and suggests to me that this article should not exist.
I feel the best way forward is to add a sentence or two to Progressive rock: something like, "In the late 1990s, a number of indie bands used prog stylings in their work, briefly known as "new prog".[1]" Then set-up a redirect from New prog to Progressive rock. Bondegezou (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with merging. I appreciate the amount of work and the fact that You spent time doing it. Genres are very fluid, yes, but we can't go like creating a new genre for everyone - actually, alternative rock has lots of influences. And yes, adding a note about progressive rock having an impact on alt-rock is very important - You can aswell move that section into a "New Prog" subsection in progressive rock, making this a small list of bands influenced by Prog Rock (but for God's sake, not TMV, they're prog!). That's very important. I just couldn't stand the list in here, as it is very misleading and somebody could think that those bands are indeed not so different or such. Filas312 (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Filas312: you are only meant to have one vote in an AfD and it helps to sign all your comments. Bondegezou (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no official rule against putting more than one opinion in bold: the closing admin is supposed to read everyone's comments and consider their full opinion anyway, so it's perfectly reasonable to say "I think we should X but otherwise Y is fine." Ignore me, I misunderstood what you meant. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2012 (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.
  1. ^ Campling, Chris (January 28, 2006). "Prog rock? Just say yes". London: Times Online. Retrieved 2007-08-11.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_prog_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1071572663"