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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal prog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page has already been deleted, and is a recreation of deleted material.The only citations on this article are clearly insufficent. Recommend Delete because of notability concerns.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is not the same as the article discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brutal Prog, so I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted material. The present article is thinner and less well sourced than the deleted one (which at least included one third party source, "Brutal prog and Beyond", by Will York, San Francisco Bay Guardian, August 7, 2002). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced Neologism.Inhumer (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 9 June 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.