Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geek rock (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Geek rock
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This article is a waste of space, it says that few bands have gone mainstream and they are not even labelled geek rock. Mr. Berty talk/stalk 21:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: There are few surer examples of the evolution of AfD than to look at the staggering 1st nomination from 2006 ... a tidal wave of Keep votes based around "could be useful," "valid genre," "needs expansion" and sourced from a last.fm link that cites ... the Wikipedia article. The current article is superficially sourced, but when you actually read the sources you find a bunch of casual, oblique mentions in college newspapers, the usual bloggers, broken links and, oh, the user-created last.fm link, not a single one of which credibly passes WP:RS.  Neither the (heavily weasel-worded) article nor any of the links attempt to define this "genre" - and even admits as much - other than that the bands purportedly associated with it use uncommon instruments, have allegedly "dorky" looks, and often play songs concerning love, loneliness and isolation.  (I could think of, oh, only about a thousand acts over the last fifty years which would fit that description in every particular, but I digress.)  None of the sources discuss the subject of this article in any detail, let alone the "significant detail" that the GNG requires; they instead discuss groups for which this article attempts to claim the mantle of "geek rock" acts.  Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG going away.   Ravenswing  07:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ravenswing said it best, but...despite the apparent sources, this appears to be a made-up genre, not unlike Nerdcore hip hop (maybe that should be AfDed next?). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep very well known genre of rock. If its sourced poorly fix it, but clearly its notable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem I see here, even within the sources given, is that various people are throwing around the term "geek rock", but where is it actually reliably defined as a genre? (A similar discussion occurred for Piano rock. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's my thought, Erpert. The article's quite blatant about it: that this alleged "genre" has little to nothing to do with music, and is based around the appearance and demeanor of the performers.  That's garbage.  The Keep voters four years ago pussyfooted around with how supposedly well known the genre is and that it's "clearly notable."  How about we try it the way WP:V requires us to do, this time?  Solid reliable sources - not from user-generated content, not from Some Guy's Blog - which are about this subject, discuss it in "significant detail" and define the genre, all as a prerequisite to saving the article.   Ravenswing  19:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Those opposed to keeping this seem to be arguing that the article is badly written, which it is. Fine - someone should research the genre and fix the article, rather than delete it.  Geek Rock was not particularly big in the 80s and 90s but has picked up substantially in the 00s, presumably with the widespread availability of broadband and the appearance of applications like spotify, which allow geeks to listen while working.  Listen to Jonathan Coulter (named on lists of geek rock) - his material just does not belong to any other genre available.  However, there is a bit of an issue here with multiple definitions - bands that look like geeks, or have geeky origins like having met at engineering school, but play other genres, and bands that play music written specifically for a geek audience.  My personal view is that the article might distinguish these two - my hope would be that eventually usage will consolidate around the latter definition.  Forget the isolation and so on - as pointed out earlier, that is part of many genres.  What sets geek rock apart is an interest in geek lifestyle issues (science, engineering, time spent in computer labs etc), geek culture (fantasy and science fiction themes), and geek stereotypes (glasses, pens in pocket, etc).  I would be inclined to add Weird Al Yankovich's parody "White and Nerdy" to the genre - although it covers a song from a completely different genre, it is also an excellent parody of geek rock themes (which themselves are generally ironic or at least humorous - but this takes it considerably further).  The point of all this is - there is plenty to write about Geek Rock.  Encourage a knowledgeable person to do it rather than trying to erase geek rock from your recognised universe.  You can't get rid of it just by denying it via Wikipedia, and you will only annoy people who love this genre. [User:JKLawrence|  JKLawrence ]]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jklawrence (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit more on the above. If you go to the Guardian newspaper site (I haven't tried others) and search for "Geek rock" you will find it is in common usage.  An article from 2007 mentions it in relation to They Might be Giants, one from 2005 mentions it in reference to Presidents of the United States of America, one from 2002 mentions a US band being labelled with it in 2002, with another article on the same band from 2001.  One of the interesting things the internet has brought to music is the potential for musical genres with a locally small but widespread audience to obtain a serious following and independent status, in which bands can influence each other.  The fact that your stereotypical geek is particularly well placed to access the technology has no doubt helped the spread of this type of music.added by Jklawrence (talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)  — Jklawrence (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply: Odd that; I can't find any references in The Guardian myself for "geek rock" . Would you care to provide links to any sources which - as WP:RS requires - discuss the subject itself in "significant detail?"  I have yet to find anything which does, other than the mere use of the term in tagging this band or that with the appellation.  As far as your personal opinion as to what constitutes geek rock, you're entitled to it, but of course that doesn't constitute a reliable source.   Ravenswing  15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Admittedly, poorly demarcated definitions are inevitable with music genres, but this one seems very poorly demarcated. There's a shortage of decent sources, and when they do mention "Geek rock", they're not referring to some overarching definition so much as they are pairing an existing definition (rock) with a modifier (Geek). That, to me, does not establish notability. You could get a thousand google hits for "Tasty Salad" but if each one mentions different ingredients, there's no objectively notable "tasty salad". bobrayner (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - References cited make no mention whatsoever of Geek Rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - IMO, not a genre but rather a way of classification of groups by appearance or merely lyrical themes. But my primary concern is that there are no sources that bring real evidence that this is a real genre (i.e., who pioneered it, who coined the term, what it the exact definition, and more importantly what makes or doesn't make a band "geek rock"). Spatulli (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2010 (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.