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. A google news search yields several relevant hits that can be used as sources for information. The articles there (including one by the Chicago Tribune) appear to be enough to establish notability. Malinaccier (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cello rock[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is one of those genre pages that has stuck around far longer than it rightfully should have. There's no factual evidence that this is an actual genre. Instead, it's just an assemblage of bands that use the cello instrument. The first AFD from two years ago passed as "Keep" with little comment and was based on the argument that "Hey, these bands all use cello!", which isn't good enough for our notability and original research guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability; no indication "cello rock" actually exists as a genre, other than within the context of this article. Basically just a list of rock bands that include a celloist. No sources cited. Its a slam dunk. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really a genre. At best this is a list entry. Hairhorn (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News search for the phrase turns up (among a lot of irrelevant hits) several references to the genre that imply that it's a real and accepted thing. Several of the linked band articles classify the band as cello rock. The article could use improvement and references (especially because references don't seem that difficult to find), but it's not terrible. The topic squeaks by, in my opinion. Propaniac (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need actual context. A lot of those results simply list the words "Cello" and "rock" together in an article. Some are from unreliable sources. Most importantly, we need several reliable secondary sources that define and establish what the genre is, rather that just using the phrase "cello rock". WesleyDodds (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I mentioned, not all of the references that turn up on Google News are useful (although because I used quotes in the linked search to find results using the phrase, I think it's disingenous to imply that many of the results use the words in the same article with no relation to each other, as you seem to be implying). It appears to me that some of the relevant references do define cello rock. My main point, however, is to show that it's not simply something a Wikipedia editor or a few editors made up, which is the main argument forwarded above; while it's possible there's a paucity of sources that can be used to specifically define the genre, there are many references for the fact that the genre does exist and the label "cello rock" is used. Propaniac (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable music genre that includes several notable bands. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate subject, but the article needs references (lots on Google News) and might have some OR that needs to be removed. I'm seeing somewhere on the order of about 150 incoming links (~164 actual) which should tell the nominator that this is kosher. It might be a good idea for any future noms to always check "whatlinkshere" before coming to AfD. Scratch that, I was unaware that cello rock was receiving hits because of its placement in a rock-related template footer. If one filters that out we only get less than a dozen incoming links. The question at hand is not whether the topic is notable, but if there is a need to redirect to a parent topic, such as Baroque pop. I would argue no, cello rock seems to have emerged as a genre on its own. News articles like this one refer to Rasputina as the first cello rock band. However, this is disputed as Apocalyptica claims to be the first cello rock band.[1] Other articles call the genre Art rock.[2] Since the term is most associated with Rasputina, one could argue that it should redirect to that band, but other artists also use it. Sometime around 2006, the term became more popular and began being used by more bands. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no dispute that the term is used, but is it notable on its own? Is there anything we can actually say about it? Because at best I'd be inclined to redirect it to Rasputina, but even that is a stretch. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can say that cello rock is "a combination of classical music and heavy metal".(Financial Times via Europe Intelligence Wire, April 8, 2009) And we can point to bands that play it using reliable sources. Beyond that, we can't say much. Would a redirect or list work beter? I don't think ignoring the topic is a solution. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is clearly notable. I think some editors are getting too caught up in what the title is. But the article isn't about the terminology it's about the musicians and music genre which are quite well established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rehashing this based on a inattentive assessment of the original discussion with the disdainful attitude that the page is here longer than it should have been, or the false assertion that it was saved because of the frivolity of the original discussion is, in itself a failure to assert provenance to those who discussed it. We should have more respect for other Wikipedians rather than to reexamine a discussion on the basis of oversimplifying the justification on which they made their discussion, "two years ago." If this reexamination were presented with a more dispassionate and rational way with clearly set out logical points for us to discuss, that would be a much much different matter. For example, how long an article has been online has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of the article. 76.172.11.202 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A Google search turns up nothing relevant, and the complete lack of references of any kind gives me doubts about whether it is an actual genre or just WP:OR based on a few odd bands. GraYoshi2x►^talk 06:35, 3 August 2009 (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.