Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eras of 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   delete.  Sandstein  11:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Eras of rock

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy declined for being wrongly requested as A7. Goes to AfD as OR, unreferenced, all or most of it covered at Rock and roll Alexf(talk) 22:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, if not Merge. Most of the information isn't that bad, I think the era divisions are probably more accurate than the ones currently on the rock music article. If we could find a few sources and perhaps change the title this article could be fixed up and be just fine. Zazaban (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. One person's view only, no consensus as to "eras", not encyclopaedic, appears US-centred .  Granted the Rock music article needs much improvement, but spun-off articles like this are not the way forward.  Good bits from this article can be added to the main article through agreement on that aricle's talk page.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment On the rock music article we could do like over on indie rock or alt rock and have a split between american and british history. We use this as a template for dividing up an american history section. Zazaban (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The US-centred question is not my main concern, and in fact re-reading the Eras article I think it shows a reasonable balance so I've deleted that comment. And, across rock music as a whole, there are so many fertile US-UK (etc) exchanges that I'm not sure that sort of split is very workable.  My main concern with the article is that there hasn't been any discussion of what these "eras" should be, and I'm not aware of a clear critical consensus.  And anyway, why is it necessary, when what is needed are referenced and agreed improvements to the main article (Rock music) which is sub-divided into "eras" or at least sub-genres anyway?  Unnecessary spin-off articles like this simply sow confusion and distract from improving the articles that most readers actually look at - and after all we are aiming to inform readers in my view, not boost editors' egos.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. Please disregard my above comment. Zazaban (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   17:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the article appears to be a poorly sourced content fork of information that already makes up the main body of the article Rock music. An article on the history of rock music would probably be an appropriate spin out of the main article if it was improved and expanded but as it stands all the content of this article seems to be better presented elsewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although the concept of the article is a good one, there's simply not enough sourcing here using sources recognized by Wikipedia (YouTube?), and this comes off too much on the side of WP:OR. This is the only place I have ever seen reference to an "Emo Era" for example; Emo genre, yes, but not an era. 23skidoo (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. The opinion of one person or a group of people, even informed opinions, are still opinions, and no matter how many sources are found for individual statements, naming and defining eras of rock is original synthesis.  Certainly, there have been book and magazine authors who have given some thought about the history of rock music, although it would be expected that those authors would disagree on certain points.  Mandsford (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  22:16, 28 October 2008 (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.

yeah ur gay if u read this.lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.11.200 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)