Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonky (music) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep  as a bad-faith nomination. Obvious sockpuppetry going on here. Non-admin closure. MuZemike ( talk ) 23:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wonky (music)
Theis article sould a COMPLETE DELETE, it HAVE A UNPUBLISHED SYNTHETHESIS OF INFORMATION, ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and NOT NOTABLE. It has not exist and the page IS COMPLETE FALSE AND SHOULD ERASED.
 * DELETE all very seruiosly talking
 * Keep. I have no idea why this is up for deletion. Seems to be a recognized term and the article's well-sourced.  Graymornings (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Neutral leaning towards a weak keep . I am almost inclined to vote "strong keep" given the appalling quality of the deletion nomination, which is incoherent and not even signed properly. That said, the article does have problems. It is not clear whether "wonky" is really a genre of music or just a descriptive word that people have used. The references show that it has sometimes been used in the sense of a genre but they are not complete or convincing enough to prove that the term is in mainstream use with this sense. There was no consensus on the first AfD and it is hard to see how this is going to get us any further. I am neutral but I strongly disagree with the wording of the nomination which, in so far as it makes any sense at all, seems to imply that the article is a hoax, which it isn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems clearly written and referenced. May be some overlap with Wonky techno, but I get the impression that they are different genres or sub-genres. Peridon (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article could do with serious development, but nevertheless Keep. Article is referenced and they meet WP:RS, and as an aside nominator strikes me as a IP sock of the original article creator, who has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Kaini (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He put his own article up for AfD? WTF? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * and tried to speedy another three. odd, i know --Kaini (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

DELETE 	I think, the first music wonky music not only the right to life. Music itself is very bad and non-obvious. The article is full of wonky and misleading information and integration of the original. ***34ji_qi76***
 * We're not discussing the music - as an extreme metal fan it's not my taste either. It's the article that counts. Peridon (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we are being jerked around here. Lets not argue with him. It is clear from the style and incoherence that the "delete" comment was added by a sockpuppet of the nominator created specifically for this purpose. I change my vote to speedy keep and suggest that we showball this farce. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep well written and referenced. Smells like socks around here though.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 23:26, 28 December 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.