Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu-funk


 * 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, based on changes to article during discussion period. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Nu-funk

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The page is a non-notable subject and is very POV. It also needs cleanup, is a stub and cites no sources and therefore could be OR. Thundermaster TRUC 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 08:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   — Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the one who removed the proposed-deletion tag. This article about a music genre could be expanded rather than deleted. Clearly more research and sourcing is needed. But this genre does get discussed by music critics—Example 1 Example 2. Keep but expand. -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Comment—I have now cleaned up the article and added seven citations to reliable sources. -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As cleaned up, the article seems to meet notability requirements. Rolling Stone's Tom Tom Club article certainly seems to assume the style exists, and that a notable band practices it. There still appears to be OR elements in the story, or at least its difficult to tell which of the references supply the information, but at this point I think its at the clean up stage, rather than the delete stage. Xymmax (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has been improved enough to justify keeping and allowing further improvement. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 17:56, 22 December 2007 (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.