Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-rave


 * 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. MastCell Talk 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Post-rave

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Tagged for speedy deletion as "pure vandalism" which is probably a pretty solid overstatement. Nevertheless, seems poorly researched, if researched at all and there's a distinct possibility that this is a hoax of sorts. Pascal.Tesson 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I nominated this for speedy deletion and as pure vandalism and I really can't see how this isn't pure vandalism. I think this has more to do with an internet fad followed by a very very few than as a bonafide genre of music. Moforex 20:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing though: if it's truly an Internet fad (and not, as one may suspect, completely made up) then the article was written in good faith and cannot be considered as pure vandalism. Pascal.Tesson 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But, If it is an internet meme or fad, shouldn't it be listed as one? Not as a genre of music? I see listing this as a genre of music very objectionable, and especially problematic for those that study 20th Century music.  Pascal, I really can't see this as anything more than vandalism because there are barely any references and I can't find much to substantiate this.  Furthermore, I sincerely doubt this 'music' (which I think Cage, Ives, Schoenberg and Varese would even find objectionable to call it) comes from Uzebekistan.   We only have references to two performers of this supposed genre, neither of which are documented by others- just themselves.  I am a musician, I'd like to think that if a friend and I came up with "Omega Funk Octopus Rock" it wouldn't be considered on wikipedia if there were just two of us! :) Moforex 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Post-rave is definitely real. It's not popular, but it does warrant an article. And as a fellow musician, I completely disagree that the composers you namedropped would not want to call this music. Especially Cage! Did you even think about what you were typing?


 * Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 07:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I knew what I was typing-- But, OK-- Maybe I was in the wrong for referencing Cage, considering his quote about trucks and music schools. Nonetheless, I want to see some sources, Agamemnon2.  All I've seen of Post-Rave is three myspace pages, two of which are more than likely by the same person.  Everything else I've seen on google is relating to 'Post-Rave Era', 'Post-Rave Guitar Rock.' There are no attributes to this style of music that give it right to be considered it's own genre.  This is a meme, not a legitimate genre.  If Post-Rave wishes to exist on wikipedia I firmly believe it needs to be listed as a meme.  This bit about Uzbekistan is ridiculous.  If this isn't a meme and it is indeed a genre, let's see some sources, 'Cause I'd love to find some and can't.  Moforex 11:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V.  I've checked on Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar.  All of the solid references to the words "post-rave" do not refer to a particular genre of music, but only use the term as a an adjective to describe a time period, or a culture, or a wide variety of genres that evolved after the Rave scene wound down. Also, the article itself has not valid references, just myspace pages and Russian language blogs.  There is one English newspaper article but it only mentions " post-rave genre mash-up", which is not a reference to a particular genre. There certainly is music that can be called "post-rave music", but not as a particular genre - many modern electronic music genres were affected by raves and rave-related music.  The articles for those genres do mention post-rave influences, but that does not make post-rave a genre.  If the article were kept, it would need to be completely re-written from scratch, on the topic of how rave-related music genres and rave-related culture has changed following the passing of the peak of rave culture.  That would be an interesting article, but it would not be the same article, so this one should be deleted, but with allowance for re-creation if someone wants to write a new article with the same name, on that larger topic. --Parsifal Hello 19:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the above reason. If this is going to be reworked to include less self-published sources, fine, but why delete the page history? &mdash;BlackTerror 14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article does not cite any references for an audience of "post rave". If it is really a genre, shouldn't it have some kind of a fan base? Speciesofone 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 16:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a joke, and even if you chose to listen to arguments to the contrary, it's NN. - BalthCat 02:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not delete this article* This is an actual genre of music that exists as a legitimate branch of rave music lifestyle.  It's distinctive in that it uses specific types of samples and instruments and enjoys a muted fan base.  It is difficult to pinpoint a genre that originated in Central Asia, naturally, but BalthCat's comment is a logical fallacy; he doesn't like this particular type of music so any arguments to prove it is music are useless.--20.4.0.18 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Luckily I also pointed out it's NN, so the fact it's all a giant (crappy) joke isn't even necessary to delete the article. - BalthCat 16:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentLuckily we have you to spew your hate across the Internet (that was sarcasm, no one actually cares that you don't like the music). It is notable, it is a distinct genre, and it is identifiable through certain inalienable features not found in other rave-style music.  If I splice dog DNA with dolphin DNA and create a new organism I no longer a dog nor do I have a dolphin.  This is a distinctly new and unique organism.  The same analogy applies to music; when genres branch out to a degree they are uniquely different they can no longer be identified with the original genre name.  The fact that you are not a fan of the music is irrelevent.--Pitchurge 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but if i write an article about 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' and cite it with only references to Canis lupus familiaris, the article doesn't hold any water or any evidence. This is a very similar case. BTW i'm also giving you very very much credit as I aliken a genre with barely any listeners to a nationally aired reality television star.Moforex 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry, 'genre' 18:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moforex (talk • contribs)


 * 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.