Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art punk (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 keep. or at least no consensus to delete. Decision whether to merge or not does not require an AfD. TravellingCari 20:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art punk

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Art punk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The page has been deleted in the past and it has somehow come back, it is also incongruent to the history of Post-punk and Post-hardcore as Art-punk is considered the same thing, it is a term that is rarely used by critics to describe these kinds of music but IT IS NOT A VALID GENRE. Therefore my vote is a Strong Delete or a redirection to Art rock. Please put references that DO REFER art punk as a valid genre, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-15th (talk • contribs) 2008/09/21 19:03:32

  • Comment. First of all, the previous AfD resulted in keep, so what is the basis for your claim that this has been deleted previously and come back? I see no evidence that it was speedied. Second, what is your actual reason for wanting it deleted? Certainly, it is not a well-written or sourced article, but that is a reason for careful editing, and the placement of cleanup tags, but it is not a valid reason for deletion. Your statement that the term "is rarely used by critics" would seem to indicate that it is used by some critics, undercutting your argument that it is not a valid genre. All in all, not a valid nomination. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently I voted in the last AfD... and my stance hasn't changed. Reading the opening sentence of the article annoyed the hell out of me, but despite the completely incorrect and badly sourced content, I see no reason to delete the article, Art Punk is real and I found a huge number of mentions it with a simple search. It needs serious work, and at least until alot more content is brought in, I'd support a Merge, though I wouldn't know where, as the Art Music article isn't well structured for taking it, and it'd be semantically wrong to just stick it in the art rock article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Do we have to keep inventing genres here in Wikipedia? I was previously involved with the Art-punk article deletion and it has come back as Art punk. Yes it might be used by critics but not to refer it as a stand alone genre but to refer to genres like Post-hardcore, Post-punk, Industrial and etc. If you want sources of my claims I will give them to you whenever it is requested.

The-15th (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the position of the article as it stands - "art punk" is a broad designator for many subgenres. Aryder779 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 'Art-punk' has been used by critics to describe bands such as Crass (sourced in the Crass article), and I believe it's possible to have a reasonable article here. The article as it stands, however, is full of WP:OR and nonsense. Avant-punk has it's own (sourced) article, and is distinct from art-punk, so the opening statement is immediately suspect. The list of 'styles of art punk' and artists here just looks (with a few exceptions) like OR/POV and is lacking sources. Perhaps the best approach would be to find artists that have articles linking here with sources for 'art punk' (on the assumption that there's more than just Crass), mention them here and stubbify this article.--Michig (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge with avant-punk. Both pages are definitely redundant. What is the problem with the first sentence of the article, by the way? "Art punk is punk rock of an experimental bent, or related to art school or the art world" - isn't that an accurate description? I don't see why art punk can't be kept as an umbrella page for various subgenres, on analogy with punk metal. Aryder779 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the first sentence is the "(also known as avant-punk)" part which you omitted above, since (i) art-punk has been used to decribe bands such as Crass, while the avant-punk article is about completely different bands, e.g. Sonic Youth, The Ex, Dog Faced Hermans, and (ii) the infobox has avant-punk as a derivative of art-punk. It can't be both the same thing as art-punk and also a derivative of it. The opening definition is also completely unsourced. The real problem here is that art-punk will always mean different things to different people, and there are a real lack of sources to base an article on, so anything more than a brief article pointing people to these different (source-based) areas is going to be problematic. If we could find sources identifying several similar bands consistently as 'art-punk' it may be a different matter. Some of the bands listed are not really any sort of punk rock, e.g. Bloc Party, The Futureheads, which doesn't help.--Michig (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else gets decided, it makes no sense for both avant-punk and art punk to be maintained as separate articles. Along these lines, Crass and The Ex are both coming from anarcho-punk backgrounds; it's totally arbitrary to say "Crass is an art punk band, whereas the Ex is an avant-punk band". The terms are synonymous. Aryder779 (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've done a little digging based on the first 10 pages of Google hits, and here's some facts:
1. Google has 215,000 hits for 'art punk', so it's a commonly used term and there are lots of articles linking here, so we need something here, even if only a redirect (so not really a suitable case for AfD, perhaps, particularly as there is already an active merge proposal on the avant-punk article).
2. The following bands have reliable sources describing them as art-punk: Crass (see the article), The Rakes ([1]), No Age ([2]), The Ex ([3]) - no real consistency to suggest this is a genre rather than an inconsistently-used term. Whether avant-garde punk and arty punk are really the same thing is a matter for the merge discussion mentioned above.--Michig (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The-15th (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 01:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - And redirect Avant-punk to it. As the article's refs for the Ex show (and as Aryder779 mentions above), both terms are used to describe the same genre/style. I think Art Punk is the better known of the two and Google appears to agree with me.    SIS  11:14, 2 October 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_punk_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137578475"