Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleaze rock


 * 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. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sleaze rock

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

All the article is based on one SPS, seems like a neologism and not an established genre that can be secondary sourced. Note you can create lots of genre names by adding an adjective before the word rock but they aren't all notable neon white user page talk 01:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as entirely original research. I added List of sleaze rock bands to this discussion as well. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * delete Just another name for hard rock. List should be deleted too. Peter Fleet (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   — Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article gets 7000 pageviews a month. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete genre doesn't exist. article is total original research. Seal Clubber (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 60 thousand google hits is an awful lot for a genre that "doesn't exist". I take it you're a musicology professor or some other type of expert on the subject?  Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * hits on a search engine is not how notability is determined see WP:N. The noun 'rock' appears alongside the adjective 'sleaze' does not indicate that a notable genre exists. For example if you search for 'crazy rock' or 'bad rock' you get millions of hits each but neither is a genre. It requires second party sourcing which is yet to appear. -- neon white user page talk 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read through the google hits, people are clearly using the phrase to delineate a genre, not just to describe. Moreover, the article mentions that the genre is mostly focused in europe, so english-language hits might now show up.  Sure enough, if you check the left column, you'll find that the article exists in several other languages -- including these very long articles in the finland and italy wikipedias --  . Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: This is just one more example of slicing the pie until Your Bands are in.  All of these are meaningless, and the only standard is whether they are names with currency and stability.  People have used "sleaze" for The Tubes, for The Cramps, and for J. Giles Band.  Now, what do those three have in common?  What kind of music are they?  I.e. the term is an easy coinage, but it has no stability.  I'm sure there are loads of hits, just as "toad leather" would get hits.  Unstable neologism.  Utgard Loki (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- if this is deleted, please put a copy in my userspace. Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - entirely OR. Category: Sleaze rock should also be deleted when the sleaze rock article and the list of sleaze rock bands are deleted. Funeral 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with above; article is complete WP:OR. Scarian Call me Pat  20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the above comments and would add that if the article and list are deleted then the category should also be deleted. Fair Deal (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2008 (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.