Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boogie 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 keep. John254 04:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie Rock

Article lacking focused content and nary a citation to be found. Completely made up of original research. Despite Time-Life Music releasing a disc of "boogie rock", no actual genre exists for this article to support. Libs (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Will change when sources magically appear. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work}
- Note: Shapiros10 switched his support to keep, see below. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per no original reseach. --Cameron * 15:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep after seeing the revisions -- Wonderful work! --Cameron * 12:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NFT --T-rex 15:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Christ's sake mate, give us a chance, I've only just created the page a couple of hours ago! Come back in a couple of days when I've done some more work on it please. 80.7.228.223 (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs, just original research --Vhoscythe^chatter 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed my vote, below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhoscythe (talk • contribs)
Delete just original research no indication that this can be improved either. JBsupreme (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the reasons are obvious. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep; see below. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Black ngold29 22:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change, see below. Black ngold29 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have done some more work on this, so I would appreciate further feedback please. BoogieRock (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the recent improvements. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nice work. You've earned it. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article would still benefit from further refs and expansion, but I no longer oppose. Black ngold29 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and propose to develop the article further, assuming it survies AfD. Thanks. BoogieRock (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards ~~Delete~~ a comment (see below). I saw this earlier and waited for references and article improvement. I question the 4 citations given. The debate over All Music Guide being used as a genre reference has been going on for almost a year in a number of Wiki-music-related projects with the consensus always grasping at "do not use it". Looking at the other 3, the web-archive article from MSN appears to be authored by a "nobody" as no Google searches for music journalists by that name show up. Is it some sort of amateur entry? If someone could point out some authenticity on the article author that would help. MP3.com doesn't really meet WP:RS and to top it off the text is just taken/mirrored from musicmatch.com which itself is not an rs either. That leaves the Rhapsody.com link which is no different then mp3.com, musicmatch.com etc... not reliable sources to try and base a fragile "maybe" music genre on. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above editor changed his/her support to keep [1]. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 15:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think the given sources are not acceptable? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't have the distrust of AMG that other editors do. But if consensus is avoid then, for genre debates, I don't refer to it. I requested clarity for the MSN entry. The other 2 (one being a mirror site) don't list where their information is taken from. They aren't pro music publications. Rhapsody is an online sales site and it seems to just recycle bits from All Music Guide for its content. For mp3.com, on the same page boogie rock shows up, it lists arena rock as a musical style??? Arena rock is a term that describes a "hard rock" era. It isn't an individual musical style at all. Google searches to try and tie Boogie rock to a source with some reputation/validity point to more of these online music sales pages which basically say its just hard rock. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting post, thanks. I think whether Arena Rock is a genre is a matter of opinion, I would tend to think of it as a term of abuse! Seriously though, do you believe Southern Rock is a genre? Clearly there is more to the rock etymology than just hard and soft rock. Boogie rock is a distinctive genre that a lot of bands identify themselves with. They know what this means and so do their fans. The phrase "Boogie Rock" throws up 348,000 hits on Google so clearly this isn't something I've just dreamt up. I understand that you don't like the sources and that's your perogative. The MSN aticle is credited to Andrew Liotta - I belive he is this gentleman: http://www.billieburkeestate.com/story.html. BoogieRock (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he is a music journalist? The self-bio seems to describe an indie performer. I did find the term "boogie rock" used once in the "Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll". In its full use it describes the "boogie rock" style played by southern rock band .38 Special. That is the only time the term is used in the entire book. In "The Essential Rock Discography" by Martin Strong and John Peel the term "boogie rock" is not used anywhere in the book. I am still looking for a valid ref. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what his qualifications for writing about boogie rock are, clearly MSN Music saw fit to commission him to write for them. Earlier on your talk page you said "If it were up to me all Rock music related articles would simply have Rock in their genre fields", I respect that but given your opinion, I'm not sure there is any further reference I could produce that would make you want to see Boogie Rock as an article on Wikipedia.BoogieRock (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found many mentions of boogie rock in the All Music Guide to Popular Music. Clearly they see it as an actual term but its that whole "avoid AMG" thing. I do question the weakness of the citations but will strike my leaning towards delete and just make this conversation a comment. My concerns about the poor references prevent me from saying keep. Of the references given only All Music Guide stands as an rs. If just a few more could be found to support AMG then I would state a clear Keep. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added further references to link the bands sited to the boogie rock genre.BoogieRock (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a recent message left on my talk page, I'm still leaning towards keep since most of the sources cited run afoul of our reliable sources policy. I will keep an open mind though and continue to monitor the changes made to this article. JBsupreme (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, if it's sourced then it deserves a "Keep" --Vhoscythe^chatter-sign 10:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how is it Wikipedia has never had this topic before??? A++++++++ LOL Rolf Mayo (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2008 (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.