Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arena rock


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   17:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Arena rock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have put Arena rock under consideration for deletion for several reasons. First of all, arena rock is consistently being placed in infoboxes on 1980s rock bands (Journey, Survivor, etc.) when it is not a genre and should not be used as such. It's not a radio format either, and it's defined as bands "using a more commercially oriented and radio-friendly sound, with highly-produced music that includes both hard rock numbers and power ballads, both often employing anthemic choruses." This describes hard rock and pop rock and even glam metal fairly well, so I don't really see the point of the article. Most popular rock bands from the 1970s onward have played in arenas and stadiums, anyway, so the term is kinda redundant. And WP:WINAD and WP:NOPAGE seem to indicate (to me, anyway) that this article is not notable enough to have its own article. Johnny338 (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course, as the topic is indisputably notable, and the current coverage goes well beyond a dictionary definition. The very first reference, a book published by the surely reliable University of California Press, devotes an entire chapter to the contrast between arena rock and punk rock. Misuse as an infobox genre is no reason whatsover to delete the article. As for the claim that "most" rock bands from the 1970s on played arenas and stadiums, that is simply incorrect. The large majority of working rock bands never played venues that large.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have made clear that most popular rock bands from the 1970s on played arenas and stadiums. I've edited it to make more sense. I just think that the info in this article could easily be incorporated into the Rock music article. That's just my two cents, though. Regardless, thanks for your view! Johnny338 (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also made the whole genre thing more clear. Johnny338 (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly hint: When you refactor your deletion rationale after another editor has responded in detail, it makes the debate more difficult to follow. Perhaps you might want to explain why you think that a topic which has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article? The Rock music article by necessity must be a broad overview article, and it is appropriate to have many sub articles. Of course, Arena rock is not a genre, but rather a characteristic type of performance venue for a broad musical style. That does not make it a less notable topic.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! I'll try to avoid that in the future. Anyway, my reasoning is that Arena rock, as you said, describes the venue the artists perform in, and is not unified by any one style. As I said, most major rock bands (or major artists in any genre in general) have played in stadiums or arenas at one time or another. This article describes radio-friendly music that Arena rock artists make. However, hard rock, soft rock, pop rock and glam metal cover all of the artists that are listed under the Arena rock article. Plus, the article doesn't really make sense. You don't necessarily have to put out radio-friendly music in order to sell out arenas. Look at artists like Rage Against the Machine or Nine Inch Nails. It just doesn't seem like a necessary article on Wikipedia to me. The articles I mentioned above cover all the styles of arena rock bands, and it just doesn't make sense to have an article on something based mostly on performance venue. Why, then, don't we have an article titled "Underground rock" or "Club rock" to cover more obscure rock bands? Johnny338 (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Any shortcomings in an existing article about a notable topic should be resolved by normal editing to improve the article, as opposed to deletion of the article. If you have reliable sources that say those two bands are arena rock acts despite not issuing "radio-friendly" music, then please add that to the article. The editors at University of California Press thought that it made enough sense to publish a book whose first chapter was devoted to arena rock vs. punk rock. That makes it notable.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * DELETE Seems like another unnecessary article which is mostly nonsense. 172.56.12.18 (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC) — 172.56.12.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. The inconvenience of a subject for article infoboxes is not grounds for deletion. The multiple reliable sources discussing the phenomenon clearly indicate that this is a notable subject and that is the main criteria for articles on Wikipedia. How editors use this elsewhere is not really an issue here.--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - If reliable sources discuss something in detail, then Wikipedia should have an article about it, even if the subject of the article is self-contradictory and doesn't really make sense. --Λeternus (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list of references shows me that the subject meets WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. A WP:TROUT for the OP. The topic is covered in many books, one of which is Arena Rock, published in 2001 by the Hal Leonard Corporation, a well-known music publisher. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Upon second thought, I have come to my senses and realized that the confusion over the article is no reason to list this for deletion. I just have one question: Can someone tell me how to withdraw my nomination for deletion? I can't seem to find any instructions on it. Johnny338 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. A term and topic that has received significant coverage, whether or not it is "redundant". An encyclopedia should describe the world as it is, not as we think it should be. The fact that it overlaps topics such as hard rock and pop rock, and the idea that it is "not a real genre", are irrelevant. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 23:57, 26 May 2014 (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.