Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Rock in the 21st Century

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Rock in the 21st Century

Completely unsourced, and a badly-formatted title. We have an article on progressive rock and if that gets too big, it would be logical to split out subarticles such as history of progressive rock and origins of progressive rock. If an article on progressive rock in the 21st century is ever needed, it should grow organically out of a normal article, like as a subarticle of history of progressive rock. It's silly to have an article like this because 94% of the 21st century has not yet occurred. With all that said, I would have just merged it elsewhere except that there's nothing to merge because this is an unsourced list of albums and stuff that somebody decided was important -- hence, nothing to merge, and, even if an article on this topic was relevant, everything here would have to be removed because it is unsourced and opinionated, not to mention badly formatted and improperly titled (should be progressive rock in the 21st century, theoretically, but since this is more of a timeline than an article, it would be timeline of progressive rock in the 21st century). Tuf-Kat 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have changed the formatting of the entry. You are correct that the title should be changed. Because the subject of progressive rock is very broad, I chose to tackle recent events because most of those are easily verifiable. I did not realize EVERYTHING, even fairly obvious items, needed to be verified. There are several sub-articles already on the "progressive rock" entry including lists which are full of opinion and debate. I think a timeline of progressive rock (even one that, for now, is just covering events and beyond) is valuable. --Flonkus 02:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Flonkus 20 February 2006 (entry edited by Flonkus)

• I have sourced the article and tried to conform to a timeline format. I did some research and discovered several other musical genres with "timeline" articles, many of which have uncited sources and opinions. Please consider keeping this one or deleting all music timelines. For now, I requested a move (after asking for help) to change the article title to Timeline of Progressive Rock: 2001-present. I'd be more than happy to take on the task of doing a full timeline of progressive rock in the future as I have considerable knowledge on the subject. --Flonkus 19:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please use normal titles, and create a normal timeline. Why would we need a timeline for the most recent six years but not prior? Why would we start a timeline for a century that's barely begun, focusing on a topic far more closely associated with the 1970s than the 21st century? If you must make a timeline, make a timeline of progressive rock. The sources you've added are nice, but are not sufficient -- this is a timeline of "important, historical events" so you need to have a source that proves more than what occurred, meaning that it's fine to have a source that proves that Dream Theater released an album in 2001, that does not prove that that album's release was an important, historical event. And it's extremely inappropriate to use a band's official website to document something like this. Tuf-Kat 19:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Work with me, please. I'm doing my part here and I am new to this process. I wanted to bring some attention to the current decade as the information on Wiki so far is sparse. I intended to cover other material later, but I will instead create a full standard timeline to resolve this apparent issue. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Regarding Dream Theater, the artwork mishap is certainly historical in this context. And I did not cite Dream Theater's website. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Regarding "important, historical events", and "key recordings". I wanted to emphasize these words so that when others add/edit the page, they are discouraged from spamming, bias, etc. as much as possible. If this is the wrong way to go about this, I will just use the words "events" and "albums" that I've seen elsewhere. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
          • You should review these examples: Timeline of heavy metal, Timeline of punk rock, Timeline of alternative rock. They are completely unsourced, arguably preferencial. If you intend to hold a standard, why are these existing documents not held to the same? Thank you for your time. --Flonkus 20:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I think those should be deleted too, but I'm glad this article is now at least consistent with them. Tuf-Kat 03:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep While sourcing would be nice - I think there needs to be more than just an editor's opinion that a band is a progressive rock band or not - I like the way the article is laid out and believe it would serve the same useful purpose as the other rock timeline articles. Denni ☯ 02:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article meets Wikipedia:Notability. However, it should include references per Wikipedia:Citing sources. It appears to make for a good read as well. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I could use a little help a little more understanding as to what does/does not require proper sourcing. Thanks! --Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The title of the article seals its fate. Encyclopedias don't write articles about the 21st century until the 21st century has finished happening. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. As mentioned, the article's name was changed and now will cover the full timeline of the genre. --Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now. It is a work in progress. Sulfur 05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm making daily additions when I have time. I will try to get a few others to help out as well. --Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article now has the title Timeline of progressive rock. I think the article has potential to give some background information that would otherwise make the main Progressive rock article long and unwieldy. The article may currently lack some depth, and it had a bad title to start with, but there's certainly room to improve it instead of tossing it out together. Also, remember WP:BITE. --Elkman 05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks, Elkman. I made a couple of newbie errors early on, but I have an interest in contributing lots of musical content to Wikipedia. I'm already very impressed at the vastness of the resource to date.--Flonkus 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Inclined to Keep, now that the page has moved to a more holistic title and is attempting to encompass the entire history of progressive rock. -- Saberwyn 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now the page is in a new format. I'll try to put some work in to improve it. Bondegezou 11:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lots of work by various people has now gone into the page. Bondegezou 14:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep--AlF 13:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Leave as redirect that works for me. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 15:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per JzG. -- Krash (Talk) 22:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Elkman's comments above. dbtfz^talk 03:14, 26 February 2006 (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.