Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonky Pop

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonky Pop

To quote the PROD that didn't make 5 days: "a pointless, not commonly used genre name that does not need its own article even if it does exist. A few articles and such about it but they're mostly about specific club nights. No evidence this has any chance of becoming a common or in any way useful term." I couldn't agree more. Delete. ~~SIS~~ 12:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The majority of Google hits for this are related to a club night rather than a specific genre or movement.[1],[2], even most of this guardian article. It may have popped up every now and then as a term because of the club night/tour and bands but genres or "movements" coined by artists and promoters themselves are hardly worthy of articles. Unless they start being used all over the place like gothic which I think stemmed from a Joy Division press release or something like that. An article on the promoter, club night or tour might work but I'm not sure that was what is being attempted in the article. I can already see someone arguing that wonky pop exists because it has a Wikipedia article and we should avoid this sort of thing. Jellypuzzle | ^Talk 12:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sloppily written advert masquerading as a "music and lifestyle movement". The existence of a "official website" EL is clue enough to what is going on here. How does a "music and lifestyle movement" get an "official" website? The paltry references only go to show that the term is "owned" by a band promoter. There might, just, be an argument for the term "wonky pop" being a musical genre, but I think it would require better cites and a much clearer definition. No indication that either will be forthcoming. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all thank you for notifying me of the deletion request. Something that is mentioned by the BBC,The Guardian and The Independent is notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion. Most of the above are arguments as to why these sources should not have written articles about Wonky Pop. You are entitled to that opinion of course but you can not change the fact they did what they did. Thirty plus years ago punk started as as a gorilla marketing campaign of sorts but people felt it was also something legitimate. So instead of cursing on a talk show and wearing ripped tee shirts with a confrontational statements these people use websites and club nights. I fail to see the difference. I am not at all saying that Wonky Pop has risen close to the level of punk the article is much shorter then the punk article as it should be. As for the future web based viral campaigns have worked but I really do not have a clue as to what the future will bring. I do think that deleting an article based on the assumption that the Wonky Pop will not become widely known borders on violating WP:FUTURE and original research. I do not think something has to be known all over the place to merit Wikipedia inclusion there are a lot of Wikipedia articles on "cult" phenomena As for changing the tone of the article that is a topic for the talk page if the article is not deleted. Edkollin (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This appears to be a neologism coined by Mika's manager Ian Watt last year. Since when were music genre names copyrighted? "punk rock" isn't copyrighted but apparently "wonky pop" is (It looks as though Watt is preventing any other artists from using that name, other than for his own artists, thus limiting its use). JamesBurns (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment: If they are copywrited the BBC ignored the issue and described Florence and the Machine as Wonky Pop. Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think Florence and The Machine have been part of their club nights. But even if I am wrong it does not matter. The article should not be deleted because editors are offended by the means the term got its name into 3 reliable sources all that matters on the issue of Wikipedia inclusion inclusions that these news organizations put them there. Edkollin (talk)
    - Comment: the article is misleading them claiming to be music and lifestyle movement. The neologism is being used to promote only a handful of bands under Watt. JamesBurns (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point there seems to be more of a desire to rewrite the article as music genre then a lifestyle more then a desire to delete article. I will rewrite it as a music genre only. Also if article is to stay editing needs to be limited to users as there has been continuous vandalism. Edkollin (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In trying to revert the massive vandalism it is possible I deleted legitimate edits by users. Apologies ahead of time. Feel free to renter edits. Edkollin (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The term, a neologism, is quite regularly used in the Guardian and by the BBC. Contrary to discussions above, the term is nothing to do with a night club. Our objective should be to improve the article, not delete it. If we deleted every article that needed work we wouldn't be left with much! Millstream3 (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.