Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nardcore


 * 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 merge to Punk rock in California. ansh 666 03:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Nardcore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable sources that discuss the genre itself. Article had one reliable source that was discussing the death of a band member, not the genre itself. Waggie (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The NOM started this AfD in a disingenuous fashion by first deleting the meat of the content.  They obviously did not do a WP:BEFORE because I was able to start adding sources before they had even created the AfD.  Here in their rush to push this AfD, they reverted and thus removed my first two additions of sources.  I don't know what other sources I will find to add in the future or how it will modify the content of the article, but I am already finding enough WP:GNG to justify the existence of this genre.  That was the sole basis for the NOM.  They have failed miserably to prove the absence of sources.  I am finding the opposite.  I suggest they withdraw the NOM at this time. Trackinfo (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment:, please remember to assume good faith. It is not disingenuous to clean up an article before nominating for AfD. It helps clarify what the AfD is actually about, helps determine whether an article is suitable for AfD, and is very often done before nominating articles for AfD. The content I removed was either unsourced, poorly sourced, or was almost entirely to do with bands and band members that are associated with the genre, not the genre itself. It was a large portion of the article content, but not the "meat" of the article. Regarding my "rush to push this AfD", I reverted your first two additions because you had removed the AfD tags, as you appeared to have accidentally removed them. I did perform WP:BEFORE and found only references to the same half-dozen bands, but no discussion that was remotely comprehensive of the genre itself in reliable sources. The references you've added haven't changed that assessment. Regarding the sources offered in the article at this point:
 * discogs.com - Simply a track listing from a compilation album, and discogs.com is often user-submitted content (ie: not WP:RS).
 * discogs.com - Simply a track listing from another compilation album, and also not a reliable source as noted above.
 * interpunk.com - Simply a track listing from a compilation album, from a site that used to sell this compilation (not WP:RS).
 * The "Rock & Roll Encyclopedia" doesn't appear to have editorial control or a reputation for fact-checking. Even if it did, an "encyclopedia" is a tertiary source. We need secondary sources to establish notability.
 * OC Weekly Article - Discusses the genre briefly, but only in the context of Ill Repute. I consider it a "weak" source, but has some merit.
 * Last.FM - Doesn't offer comprehensive coverage, is extremely short, and is user-submitted content. Ironically, it looks like that short blurb was actually copied from Wikipedia, in fact.
 * A useful RS noticeboard discussion about discogs.com can be found here, and a short discussion regarding last.fm can be found here.
 * Merely proving something exists isn't not enough to meet WP:GNG. If there isn't any comprehensive coverage available to summarize about the article subject, it isn't suitable for inclusion. Frankly, if the only thing to say about the genre how it relates to a half-dozen bands and the deaths of various band members in those bands, that should make it's notability suspect in and of itself (aside from the lack of comprehensive discussion in reliable sources). If the only thing to say about Black metal was the various tales and travails of bands that have created music in this genre, then it would not be notable, either. On a related note, please see the MOS guidelines regarding listing bands in genre articles. If I've made a mistake and this genre IS truly notable, I welcome you to please provide comprehensive coverage in reliable sources to prove me wrong, but I'm seeing anything so far that changes my mind at all, so forgive me if I do not withdraw my nomination. Thank you for your contributions. Waggie (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: I've looked over the new sources offered, they're all interviews of band members waxing nostalgic over their younger years, old concert promotions, more track listings, and discussion of things other than the genre itself (other genres, for instance). They all mention Nardcore, but do not discuss it comprehensively. Reading all this, I still do not know what makes Nardcore, Nardcore, other than that a half-dozen skate punk bands from Oxnard, California claim that it's their genre., I appreciate the work you're putting into this, but I'm not sure actually you're helping readers understand what Nardcore actually is. Waggie (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not undervalue. First, the article identifies over a dozen bands, not including renamed bands.  If you are to discount any article because it contains an interview with one of the principals, then you will negate the vast majority of sources in any subject.  The concept of nardcore is mentioned in the editorial voice of most of the source articles linked.  Many of those publications are from L.A., Orange County and further regions, all of which recognize the unique style of Nardcore, not that I am enough of an expert in the subject to tell you.  Some sources include JFA as associated with the style, even though they were a Phoenix band, so it is not just geography.  The key point here is, this is discussed in more than passing terms in a lot of different sources, including known publications like the L.A. Times.  Unsourced and GNG, the issues you challenged the article on have been solved.  You have no case for the destruction of this content.Trackinfo (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Interviews of principals are primary sources and are not suitable for establishing notability. Yes, the existence and concept of Nardcore is mentioned in the editorial voice of those publications, but not discussed. After thoroughly reading every single source you've offered, I see no secondary source (or even primary source) that actually explains what really differentiates Nardcore, other than region. Also, which sources include JFA as associated directly with the Nardcore style? I can't seem to find any. The editorial discussion in the sources is of the bands, or the members, or the skate punk/hardcore punk genres in general. Where is the secondary source that descriptively "recognize(s) the unique style" of Nardcore? The LA Times article you mention has precisely one and a half sentences that tangentially discusses Nardcore in (more or less) editorial voice: "...when all sorts of hard-core punk bands used to scare each other's parents. Groups such as Agression, Dr. Know, Ill Repute and Stalag 13 collectively became known as Nardcore." The rest of the article is about Oxnard's music scene in general and the little other discussion of Nardcore is WP:PRIMARY. In fact, the LA Times article is actually about a band from a completely different genre, and Nardcore is brought up only because the interviewee is a younger sibling of a Nardcore musician. That is quite explicitly a passing mention. Please remember, we're just politely discussing the merits of the sources, and the article's notability in a Wikipedia context. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I'm just not seeing it yet. If the discussion holds that it's not notable and the article is deleted, there's always the option to WP:REFUND if/when good sourcing can be found. Thanks again for your time. Waggie (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are zero interviews in the 2 paragraph City of Oxnard recreation page discussing Nardcore history. It directs to another two page article discussing the publication 60 Miles North as the locally produced journalism on the subject.  That links to 15 back issues of the magazine available for sale.  If a scene can generate that much journalism, that is certainly not a one off mention that you dismiss.  Yes 60 Miles North bears no resemblance to a professionally produced publication, the Jacob Rhodes interview discusses the DIY nature of the scene the now professional artist grew up in.  Those sections you classify as one off mentions occur in multiple issues of seven existing (or better said) surviving newspapers, two of them daily papers.  We also have multiple sources archived from within the punk community, plus of course the sources documenting some compilation albums of the genre and current performances of the four surviving bands from over 30 years ago.


 * What you nominated was an article with a single dead link as a source. Without sources and without doing a WP:BEFORE search that would have confirmed the existence of sources (and should have averted the AfD in the first place), you deleted 9 and a half paragraphs of content before making the nomination.  In the minutes of your processing the nomination, I did do the search, I saw the sources existed.  I replaced the content and added two sources, which you rush reverted.  Since then, the article has been built up to 27 sources backing up most of what was in the existing article.  Yes some of what was there was self serving, poorly composed junk.  Cleaning stuff like that is what a competent editor should be working on.  Waggie, you seem to be twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to dismiss this much content in order to prove yourself right and get a win.  And if you succeed, wikipedia will be the lesser for it.


 * Repeating my suggestion from earlier, you should withdraw your nomination. Then improve your AfD nominating technique to first include a search for sources so you can see if what you are attacking is a legitimate subject (that you should then improve) or something worthy of wasting everybody's time with an AfD nomination. Trackinfo (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I nominated in good faith and I stand by my nomination. As I explained prior, I did perform WP:BEFORE and found many of the sources you have added to the article, however I do not find them useful in a Wikipedia context for describing Nardcore itself. Also as I explained prior, I simply reverted your removal of the AfD tags, which you had mistakenly removed. I'm not trying to get a "win", Wikipedia isn't about that. I'm here to build a quality encyclopedia. The quality of the sources is far more important than quantity. I agree that Nardcore is a legitimate subject, but as it stands, I don't see it meeting inclusion guidelines. I appreciate the work you've done in attempting to improve the article. Unfortunately, it's still not answering the questions I've put forth. For the sources again, the "City of Oxnard recreation page" you refer to is clearly not journalistic (it's a blog). 60MN is also clearly not subject to editorial control and doesn't have a history of fact-checking - it's a local magazine written by people directly associated with the Nardcore scene (WP:PRIMARY). The Jacob Rhodes interview is ... an interview. The bottom line is that the article simply does not explain what makes Nardcore unique through use of reliable, secondary sources. Can you give me a description of what makes Nardcore unique, and point at the reliable, secondary sources that lead to that description? If you can do that, I'm happy to work with you to improve the article in that direction. Who is "We" and what are these archived sources you're referring to? Again, I welcome improvement of the article with reliable, secondary sources that actually talk about Nardcore. LA Times, OC Weekly, etc, are reliable sources as publications, but the sources offered either do not discuss Nardcore or the discussion is offered by an interviewee (WP:PRIMARY). You've got an article here that is basically about the Nardcore bands, not Nardcore itself. Genre articles are not supposed to be a list of bands, as I pointed out prior. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge Delete . With the exception of this source, which seems to list everything, the references provided are just a bombardment of "...the genre known as Nardcore" or "...including Nardcore artists like..." I searched a dozen or so other GNews hits, and while you can definitively say that the genre exists, there's nothing in the way of significant coverage about the genre. There are no sources like "here's what you need to know about nardcore". A proliferation of interviews, primary sources, and name drops do not denote significance or notability; it just means something exists. If you can find some sources that actually talk about nardcore I'm willing to reconsider my opinion. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Updated opinion based on the well-reasoned reply below by Chubbles. A paragraph or two could certainly be added somewhere. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 15:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Punk rock in California. There's some poor reasoning on both sides above. Tertiary sources are prima facie evidence of secondary source coverage; if an encyclopedia has an article about a topic, it's because it's noteworthy enough to end up in an encyclopedia (and so, in virtually all cases, most likely noteworthy enough to end up here). That said...the encyclopedia manqué discussed here does not, as far as I can tell, meet WP:RS guidelines, and I took the liberty of junking some of the other links that definitely aren't up to snuff. At least a couple of the sources proffered, especially the OC Weekly and VC Star sources, clearly establish that there was a hardcore scene around Oxnard that came to carry its own designation, and that merits mention in a paragraph within an existing article on hardcore. It also establishes the utility of having something parked at Nardcore for user convenience - if not an article, then a redirect. Deletion is not a good option on the table. What I'm not seeing from these sources is much indication that this designation referred to a distinct style or close-knit scene that engendered its own critical or rock-journalistic attention as such; it just seems to refer to hardcore from Oxnard. That deserves some mention within the context of SoCal punk, but I'm not seeing enough on which to hang a separate article here. That said, there should be no prejudice to re-creation if more robust sources materialize. Chubbles (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you make some very good points, thank you. I would support a merge to Punk rock in California. I also agree that there should be no prejudice against re-creation if better sourcing becomes available. Waggie (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep What are you idiots talking about? Nardcore is the father of the other punk in California.  Yeah Nardcore learned a little from England and New York, but its our own thing.  The guys in LA learned from Nardcore.  And its still alive today, there was a concert this weekend.  You know its hard to get anybody to write about anything punk.  Even against those odds, you've got bunch of "sources" a couple of daily newspapers, a bunch of weekly newspapers. What do you possibly expect from a scene that has had to be DIY for the better part of 40 years?  And most of it is even correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.214.124 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2018 (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.