Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock noir


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Rock noir

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Original reasearch and WP:COATRACK for Belladonna about a genre not present in notable sources, except in statements of Belladonna's members and by other musician in which there is not a connection. Louisbeta (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's face it, the combination of rock and theatre (when we subject that to Rock noir), has existed at least since the time of Alice Cooper and Kiss. If we are going to boot Belladonna for claiming that the fusion of rock and theatre exists, then we had better make room for kicking out Alice, Gene, GWAR...and those guys obviously are valid under the WP:BAND, etc... Ren99 (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did you actually read the topic? Rock noir is born in 2006 (accordly to the article). How Cooper and Co. could be involved? Moreover, Cooper and Kiss are not really close to "rock noir" claiming, as in the article is clearly written.--Louisbeta (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * the term "Rock noir" may be "coined" by current claim, but the use of the stylistic and theatric motif has existed far beyond 2006. The point here is that performers have been using the format for ages, and that simply criticizing a contemporary definition does not erase the use of the genre for many, many years.  It's a historical look-back, and it applies.  Music didn't start in 2006, people didn't just start applying theatre to music in 2006, and denying that "Rock noir" has existed for a significant time fails to view that very history.  Sid Vicious didn't invent putting clothes pins in his shirts for the look, it's attributed variously to Johnny Hell, but that does not mean Sid is less famous for making it prominent.  Logic tells us to expand the article to include the various histories, not drop the information as if it did not exist. Ren99 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I could agree with you but we don't have to do or have original research (as you know, we don't create information, we collect it): so, if we found reliable 3rd-pary sources talking about rock noir in a organized way, we could keep it. I did my research and I did not found (moreover, principal contributor to this page is quite single-purposed (this could be not a English word, sorry), so the suspect of a RO grows).--Louisbeta (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd hate to consider a simple selfish-circumstance for a single band, but if the name is coined simply for personal exposure then it fails the WP:COI & WP:SELFPUB. However, the article is presented as a genre, and not in reference to a single entity. Additionally, there is no original research in defining a performance mode, only in developing one.  The theme is not original, and has been used artistically for years and mimicked by many artists.  So since the material is not original research, it is not in conflict of interest, and it is not in self-publication by a single source, then I would imagine we'd need a better reason to delete it for being a valid idea than simply that it has not been previously included. Ren99 (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that then article is well presented, in order to avoid the COI, but how can you say "there is no original research in defining a performance mode", if the definition is merely invented by a band? (the Italian soruces are quite clear about it: they invented the name of the genre in order to be "more original", but a lot of commenters (also in voice talk) say that their genre is identical to gothic rock). Moreover, I have to repeat: we don't creat informations, we collect them. Where is a 3rd party indipendent source describing rock noir as a notable genre? --Louisbeta (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete RO. No 3rd-pary sources.--Louisbeta (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not make more than one bold !vote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The lack of reliable third party sources (music stores and forums are not reliable sources) indicates that this fails WP:NOTE. The argument that there is a long term link between rock and theatre only undermines the case for this being a recognisable genre.--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable neologism. Total absence of any reliable, third party sources discussing this "genre" in detail. Articles about the one band do not support the creation of a new genre (we'd have hundreds every day if we included them all) and claims about a long-standing link between rock and theatre still do not justify "rock noir" as being an accepted as a term for that crossover by the music press. Ultimately fails WP:GNG. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2012 (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.