Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"sprock"


 * 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. W.marsh 04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"sprock"


From the, now removed prod: Non-notable, Googletest: 681 for "sprock anastacia", most saying 'she affectionately refers to her music as "sprock"'. She invented the word, no record of anyone else using it. Article has only one contributor, the article and its contributor both only have one edit, and the article is incorrectly titled. -- RHaworth 12:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment What exactly is wrong with this article give suggestions instead of criticism. No one will help to make it better, evryone is saying it's bad with out giving reasons, this is unfair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.110.31 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the whole of this article is already or can be covered by the Anastacia article, where we can already read "The popstar created a sound called Sprock, a fusion of soulfull singing, catchy pop tunes and rock instruments never before used in her albums before." So 'sprock' is perhaps worth a wikidictionary listing, but that's all.  The article, if it stays, also needs major spelling/grammar correction. Delete  Emeraude 13:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom -- Whpq 13:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with the Anastacia article rather than delete it, and create a new wiktionary listing (if it's not already there). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onur h (talk • contribs)


 * It should be kept and the grammar and spelling should be corrected, it is an important article, and more information would make it better. "KEEP" User:Conor Moroney
 * For some strange reason everyone is against this article, I see nothing wrong with it(ok the grammars a bit off but that can be fixed!)It should be kept, all thes snobs on wiki are ruining everything,
 * The article should stay, in my opinion. I do feel it is rather bare and some pictures and a tad bit more info is needed, but that does mean if should be gotten rid of
 * More info, more accuracy. Keep the bloomin' thing
 * Well from where I'm standing more folk want it to stay so this debate should be closed so we can improve on this artcle
 * Delete per nom and emeraude, also as unsourced. Maybe redirect sprock to Anastacia. Sandstein 23:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this malformed article, and merge/redirect sprock to Anastacia per Sandstein. Danny Lilithborne 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Anastacia (after moving/deleting "sprock" to sprock) until we get some solid sources on the use of "sprock" by other singers. --- RockMFR 00:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this article claims the existence of a genre, and provides a backstory thereto, of music without sources or verification.-- danntm T C 01:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- I've moved "sprock" to sprock. --- RockMFR 04:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:NEO, an artist inventing a word to describe their own work, no demonstration of general use. Show me multiple reliable sources talking about this term then I will change my mind. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If we get rid of the word genre, then its all fine. Anyway most of you are not fans, thus not knowing the importance ot this article. All you computer geeks have gotten lost in your own self supieiority to realise that this is needed. Believe me it HAS TO BE KEPT KEEP


 * Delete unverifiable, and original research. WP:NEO comes into play here, and this serves as an example of why it's wrong to use Wikipedia for neologisms (remember Articles for deletion/Exicornt?? --SunStar Net 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything can be verrified go on to Youtube type in Anstacia interviews and you'll see it, go on to www.freakyenough.com and it will verrify, go onto www.anastacia.com and it will verrify. You are wrong KEEP
 * There's no need to go to Youtube to verify it. As I pointed out above, this information is all in the Wikipedia article Anastacia so it can be verified there.  But that's the point isn't it: this article offers nothing new and is at best a dicdef.  Emeraude 19:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (And I'm a fan.)


 * But not everything is covered, why she picked this way of singing, what caused her, and how others have copied, there should be a Sprock section in Anastacia but there's not and anytime i ever edited Anastacia and spoke about sprock e.g. when i added that she wanted edge or when i added that it was a mixture of soulfull sining, pop tunes and rock instruments it was removed, someone got rid of my edits, there is only one sentence on sprock in  Anastacia so how can all of what i wrote be covered in Anastacia when most of the info isn't even there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.104.119 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 November 2006


 * I put a little thing a the top of Anastacia to merge Sprock, I can't be bothered to argue any more, no one will obviously say they are wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.111.124 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 December 2006


 * well since there are no more comments are we all happy on the merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.99.179 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 December 2006


 * Just saw the text was merged by a copy-paste. Almost all of the text repeats content already in the Anastacia article, and the new text doesn't fit well. It will need a lot of pruning. Gimmetrow 15:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well thats why I put it there so the info could be altered and made better, the section is needed as is a biography section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.81.120 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 December 2006


 * With the (limited) content merged, Delete "sprock" and redirect sprock to Anastacia. Gimmetrow 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.