Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy prog


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Heavy prog

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Dubious genre with non-notable secondary or third party sources ,

Most references are from progarchives, a fanbased website.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Prog Defender Wait! What? C'mon! Why are you doing this? Please! Don't delete my article! I promise I will get some more information, starting today! --69.244.139.166 (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)unknown user

And progarchives is NOT a fanbase website. Infact, it carries a lot more useful imformation than Wikipedia (no offence). Just let me keep on adding and changing a few thing to convince you to change your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.139.166 (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't take personal offense at nominating an article for deletion.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not nominating an artice, I'm trying to defend it so you won't delete it!--69.244.139.166 (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Undecided - as someone who is knowledgeable on this topic, I believe that the term "Heavy Prog" does have some viability and was common in books and magazines of the period. Unfortunately, that's dead trees stuff that will make it difficult to find useful references for this article. Meanwhile, ProgArchives can be considered a reliable source (it's not user-generated overall), but this article will definitely need more than just band pages from that particular website. I'm Undecided for now, and I know that's not really a useful vote, but I do think this article has some potential if reliable sources can be found. But if that cannot be done, allow me to raise the possibility of a Merge to Progressive Metal because Heavy Prog can also be considered an early manifestation of that genre. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 15:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, everybody. I have been editing my article! I was wonering if any of you people would like to see some of the improvements I've made? --69.244.139.166 (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you still need more references beyond band pages at ProgArchives. Those pages can be used to support the Wikipedia articles for those bands (even the fact that someone called them Heavy Prog) but the article under discussion here needs to show some evidence that the term Heavy Prog enjoyed widespread usage as a stand-alone genre. Meanwhile, the article as it stands now is getting closing to running afoul of the WP policy on original research. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 15:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete GNews gets two hits, GBooks gets lots of false hits. I think a few people used such a term here and there but if they did it didn't catch on generally. Mangoe (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * NOT Delete Well, edited the article some more. And to be clear with you guys, I borrowed some information on other articles so that it doesn't "run afoul on the WP policy about to never make original articles". Even though that's the STUPIDEST policy I've ever seen on this website.--69.244.139.166 (talk) 19:58, 28 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.