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 redirect to Stoner rock. Martial BACQUET 15:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article was previously nominated for deletion some two years ago. It survived (barely); but with the expectation that it be cleaned up. This has not taken place; the article remains unreferenced and vague. It may be possible that we can have an article on this topic, but it isn't possible now, and hasn't been possible for three years. The article as written makes no claim as a noteworthy sub-genre, and presents no evidence that its claims are truthful or representative. Indeed, commentators at the previous debate reflected skepticism at some of the article's claims--those claims remain, unreferenced. While we are under no pressing deadline to whip articles into shape, we are also not obligated to keep bad articles around in the hope that some day someone will fix them. Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its authors are obviously still too stoned to commit to editing it. To be serious of what it is a subgenre I couldn't begin to guess. --Rodhullandemu 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Are there any more cheese doodles? MarkBul 22:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Mackensen, NN enough to warrant an article. ILovePlankton^(L—n) 22:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is such a thing as Stoner rock, which seems to be in substantially better condition than this article, although it doesn't have the intended scope that this article seems to have. A redirect may be in order. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to stoner rock. That's the most common "stoner" designation used in reputable music journalism. Chubbles 05:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Search of Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News and the first 100 hits on google proper for "stoner rock" -wikipedia bring up no reliable sources. Many hits (pun intended) on cannabis and music forums, but we can't exactly cite those. The article is OR, plain and simple. --Gimme danger 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That stoners don't listen to ambient, speed metal, gregorian choirs or Wagner is patently false--Victor falk 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to stoner rock -- Whpq 16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or keep rather than redirect to stoner rock (can't make up my mind). Stoner rock is a well defined genre whereas stoner music is just a term (not a genre) for music (whatever genre e.g. reggae, hip hop) that is strongly associated with cannabis use. In other words, it's music to listen while getting high. See Rolling Stone articles [1] and [2]. The term is wildly used on the internet, mainly in forums and other non-notable media. Here are some examples of more reliable media that have used the term: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and less notable but nevertheless sources [10], [11] . Some of them refer to stoner rock, most do not. Kameejl ^(Talk) 22:44, 2 October 2007 (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.