Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaelic punk

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaelic punk

Another one of those really obscure genres, I've seen similar sub-sub-subgenres nominated before. Has 243 Google hits. Obli (Talk) 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Many signs on non-notabiliity. "new phenomenon," "Three bands to date have started recording in the medium of Gaelic." 00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Bands are notable, and I have heard of all of them. --MacRusgail 14:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete google search for "gaelic punk" -wikipedia gives only 300 results. —This user has left wikipedia 01:15 2006-02-02
  • Probably because many of the pages wouldn't be in English to begin with? --MacRusgail 14:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per everybody. Royboycrashfan 05:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep I'm an unabashed inclusivist, and this seems interesting. Cleanup required though. Akerensky99 05:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because interesting and encyclopedic arent the same thing. (Signed: J.Smith) 05:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Achille -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per cleanup. Savidan 07:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable genre. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, it has been added to the music wikicities [1], no reason to keep here -- Astrokey44|talk 12:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's lot of categories of punk music, why not another one. Especially one thats interesting and worthwhile. Not just music but culture too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.227 (talk • contribs)
• Delete ridiculous sub-categorization. Although I eagerly await North Dublin-style Gaelic punk. Lord Bob 17:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep The article as currently drafted is poor, but I do think that it is likely to be an encyclopaedic topic. If we delete it, I am certain that it will pop up again, hopefully in better shape.--Mais oui! 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Revised to "Keep" after considering other comments: this is clearly a notable, encyclopaedic topic. It is just that the article is badly drafted, but we shouldn't bite the newbies just cos they're new.--Mais oui! 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable yet, may be notable in future if there are more than three bands. ←Hob 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the article is a bit messy presently but its subject matter is not un-notable. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - bands were featured recently on BBC programme. There are more obscure things on WP, why not this? Article is a mess at moment, though. Camillus (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Real enough, Maximumrocknroll has coverage of it and it's being retro fitted for the Pogues. Rx StrangeLove 06:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep interesting topic that I'm sure is useful. Logophile 11:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I realize that this topic is somewhat encyclopedic, but only if placed in the right place, perhaps a better place for it would be a note under an article about language preservation, or perhaps Gaelic language? What I'm saying is that it's only encyclopedic as an attempt to preserve a dying language, but not as a genre that only one notable group falls into. Obli (Talk) 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article is still in its infancy and will be further developed and tidied. Yes, Gaelic punk and is featured in the Scottish media and is becoming a more widely used term for bands that not only sing in Gaelic but have 'Celtic' influences such as Flogging Molly and the Pogues. If Wikipedia encourages new writers to write on new topics then it goes against the spirit of free and democratic information if it is immediatley deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.227 (talk • contribs)
  • Please note that this is the second vote from this anon user Obli (Talk) 20:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Also see feature in Punk Planet magzine on Gaelic Punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.227 (talk • contribs)
• Delete nn; too obscure. Carlossuarez46 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - The criteria for notability can be satisfied. The sub-genre exists. There is even mention of this cultural phenomenon in recognised popular media sources. This one does not even require much consideration- it is, by its nature, a 'keep'. One caveat- the present state of the article is deplorable; lots of cleanup needed (inaccurate statements, POV-slanted phrasing, et cetera). → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 06:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. cleanup. -- Marvin147 23:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Khoikhoi 01:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG keep - an emerging genre. But move to "Scottish Gaelic punk". Irish and Manx are Gaelic too. --MacRusgail 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep funnily enough! This is my first submission to Wikipedia, any helpful comments and advice welcome. Layout and content is still being worked on. As to being obscure, isn't it the job of encylopedias to shed light? Yes, it certainly does exist as is evidenced by the 268,000 Google hits on the term and international media coverage. What other minority 'interests' should we delete from Wikipedia? Scots Gaelic punk would be more relevant if we only take language into account. It is argued that you can't be a Gael without Gaelic. However, some of the bands mentioned do have influences rooted in traditonal Gaelic culture, for example use of the bagpipes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seonaidh (talk • contribs)
• Keep definitely looks interesting, notable. ikh (talk) 02:15, 7 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.