Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geek rock

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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 08:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geek rock

Delete Superfluous Article Threatis 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Could be useful to musicheads, drawing attention to a connection between bands not often linked together stylistically. Has potential, needs to be worked on. Tractorkingsfan 13:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the article is in desperate need of expansion (it needs to more clearly define "geek rock" as a subgenre and section of culture, with more firmly defined examples and exploration), but it's a valid and oft-used term within musical genres. Seb Patrick 13:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, there's a bunch of music genre stubs, but they mostly serve as category headers and are within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres, which seems to be expanding them, slowly but surely. Also, the claim "superfluous article" needs to be backed up by pointing out what it's superfluous to! Xtifr _tälk 13:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - valid subgenre. Not paper. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, expansion needed, valid subgenre. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Def needs expansion but as stated above, a valid subgenre. Chris Kreider - Chrislk02 14:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment well, I want to opine keep, but this article is completely unsourced. The term itself is not sourced; the bands listed as examples are not sourced as being considered part of this genre. To be clear, I've heard this term numerous times, but the problem from an article standpoint is that there are no verifiable reliable sources to back this up, and WP:NOT paper doesn't exempt an article from needing to be verified.--Isotope23 15:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Lack of sources is not, however, a reason to delete an article. There is a difference, after all, between verifiABLE and verifiED. Yes, the article as it stands has no sources, and yes, it needs them. But a quick Google search will reveal that everything in it can surely be sourced given some time and work (which I'm willing to put in). This makes it different, therefore, to an article that is simply pushing original research. Seb Patrick 17:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually lack of sources is a perfectly legitimate reason to delete an article. There is a difference between verified and verifiable; right now this article is completely unverified and when I did something more than a quick Google search (I actually followed some of the links, etc.) I didn't see anything that met reliable sources or provided verification, so at least on the surface this isn't verifiable either (at least not from reliable sources). Again I'm not suggesting that sources don't exist at all (that's the reason my above statement was a comment and not a deletion opinion); but the important thing is to find WP:V sources for this article. I wasn't able to find any, but I'm hoping someone does because I am interested in seeing this article retained.--Isotope23 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not according to the deletion criteria, it isn't. If an article appears unverifiable, the solution is not to delete it outright, but to find sources wherever possible. If such sources cannot be found, then deletion may be possible. But I could point you to a hundred articles on Wikipedia that wouldn't in a million years be deleted, yet don't have adequate sources or citations. Seb Patrick 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is getting off topic, but I'll just leave it that yes I agree with you, there are a number of unverified (and possibly unverifiable) and poorly verified articles that never will be deleted. It's unfortunate, but consensus can trump policy in some cases. In this case however I'd like to see this kept for now sourced if possible (and I've tagged it for needing verification), which looks like where this is headed. If it doesn't get sourced in a few months then that can be dealt with at that point. Besides, I'm the only one grumbling about sourcing... the original deletion reasoning makes no mention of it...--Isotope23 19:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please Note - I've just done a major rewrite of the article in an attempt to make it seem more relevant (although it's still desperately short on sources). Note therefore that any comments after this will refer to the newer version. Seb Patrick 17:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think I'd heard of it as nerd-rock, but I had heard of it long before I'd ever heard of Nerdcore hip hop.--T. Anthony 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Valid article. Noted bands are associated with being "geek rock"[1]. While not overly recognized on a mainstream scale, it is indeed a real genre. My only concern, as mentioned by Isotope, is the lack of sourcing. I'll do my best to do some research to keep this thing alive.--ARandomHeretic 23:31, 14 November 2006 (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.