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. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-punk revival

[edit]

Possible neologism based on a single allmusic article, lots of original research here neon white talk 13:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (for now). It seems to be used mostly by allmusic. Most of the artist mentioned are either indie rock, alternative or Britpop. Google news throws up 155 articles and Google Books gives me 14. I'll wait until we get some more reliable sources to its existence outside of Allmusic for me to make up my mind. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noted it's use in some reliable sources but there's is only the allmusic article that really covers it in any significance as required for a neologism. Some of the source also appear to attribute the term to differing concepts. --neon white talk 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hundreds of articles link to this one, and deleting this would leave hundreds of redlinked genres in articles, or if these were delinked no explanation of what post-punk revival means, which would be a bigger problem than leaving this here. Approx. 155 Google news results for "post-punk revival" (e.g. this) suggest it's widely-enough used to be sufficiently 'notable', and verifiability doesn't appear to be a problem. --Michig (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no significant coverage there. Remember that a neologism does not establish notability by use but by coverage. --neon white talk 09:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, legitimate genre used in a range of publications, as shown above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Where? --neon white talk 09:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here and here, for one. It took me about thirty seconds of Google-fu to find these, so I'm sure that I could find more if I really looked hard. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Relisting at the request of the nominator. Note that the article was not tagged for deletion when it was first nominated. It is now tagged. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty notable, and discussed by several sources (one of the most important is the Afterward of Simon Reynolds' book Rip It Up and Start Again: Postpunk 1978-1984). It's a well-established movement. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if i am wrong but Reynolds' book is about post-punk only rather than 'post-punk rivival'. --neon white talk 09:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, the post-punk revival is discussed in the Afterword of the book, as an aspect of post-punk's legacy. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: two more reliable sources which discuss it are Stylus Magazine [1] and The New York Times [2]. --JD554 (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stylus article doesnt mention the term by name only discuss a rivial of such sounds, not great for notability. --neon white talk 09:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Stylus article refers to "p-punk revival", I think it's pretty clear what it's talking about, especially given the context of the article at the beginning talking about "post-punk". --JD554 (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Though leaning towards Keep. If it's kept the entry should be edited/expanded. That list of bands doesn't belong. If it's deleted it should be added (and the links redirected) to the main "Post-punk" entry. There's no question that "post-punk revival" is a legitimate term after all. --KatjaKat (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging would be a better solution. In fact almost the entire article is already contained as a section in the post punk article. It might be worth working on that section and spinning out if necessary later. --neon white talk 09:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:BEFORE covers that with "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." --JD554 (talk) 06:49, 6 May 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.