Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synth rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Redirect to Synthpop. Taken altogether, sources do not support this as anything more than a carelessly used search term. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synth rock

Synth rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This genre is an apparent neologism, defined only by the fact that they're rock bands with synthesizers. Thus you get bands of unrelated rock subgenres like progressive rock and New Wave thrown together. A Google search didn't turn up any reliable sources for this as a genre term. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep While I sympathise with the criticism, problems with definition are best addressed in the article itself. The term is widely used and legitimate. As popular culture terminology it's most likely not been the subject of a series of academic essays. Nonetheless, it is notable and worthy of an encyclopedic article. Debate (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
We need verifiable proof that it's "widely used and legitimate". WesleyDodds (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a widely used term. Andre666 (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • comment I find the above "Keep" arguments unimpressive, as they are notability arguments not backed by even one source. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, the term is definitely in use: [1]. There's an entire book about Synth Music. Zagalejo^^^ 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
We need a proper context. How do we know it's being used as a genre term there and just a shorthand critical descriptive term? A problem like that resulted once when someone tried to argue that Rolling Stone "verifies" the genre's existance by linking to a live review of the Killers, where the phrase was merely used as critical short-hand. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, let me ask you... would you consider synthpop a real genre term? Zagalejo^^^ 23:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You are wandering off the topic at hand, which is Synth rock. These other terms are other issues not related to this AfD. The links you have provided do not really prove that the term is in wide usage. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I had a purpose for asking that. I was wondering if we could use synth rock as a redirect to synthpop. Zagalejo^^^ 23:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
But for the record, there are also 581 Google News hits for "synth rock", so the term definitely is being used. How it's used is the question at hand. Zagalejo^^^ 00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think "Synth rock" could possibly be redirected to synthpop, which is a well-defined and established genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I was just reading this and it is clear that "it is in use" is not considered a valid argumant for inclusion of a neologism. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to synthpop. I have been considering this over several days, and have done an extensive search of both academic and popular sources, and I can only find one source that clearly defines the term other than one substantial reference, Dictionary of American Pop/rock (Shaw, 1982: p378). Synth Rock is used as an occasional descriptive term in music criticism, but as far as I can tell the term is not used consistently, and appears indistinguishable from the much better defined Synthpop. Debate (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the better defined synthpop per WD, the galactic president, and Debate. Dimitrii (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keep This is a widely used term for an influential musical genre, and is distinct from synthpop. Has everyone here been living under a rock for the last 40 years? AfD hero (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I've been trying to save this article, but I can't find any reliable sources. Widely used or not this article does not currently comply with Wikipedia policies. Anything you can do to help find some reliable sources would be welcome, since otherwise this article looks like it's going. Debate (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If strict adherence to the guidelines would cause us to exclude entire well-known music genres, then the application of those rules is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Thus IAR commands us to ignore such guidelines in this instance. (Hopefully we can just find some sources and it won't come down to IAR) AfD hero (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
IAR does not apply to verifiying notability. I also find this editor's actions suspicious; they just registered, but their username is "AfD hero" and all but one of their edits are in AfD discussions. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
IAR applies to everything. If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. Period.
As for my participation in AfD's, I choose to participate in the project by voicing my opinion on AfD's. Nothing wrong with that, there are a lot of people who do basically the same thing (most tending to fall on the deletionist end of the spectrum, nothing wrong with that either). I tend to fall on the inclusionist side of things, but back up all my votes with solid arguments based on policy and the particulars of the article in question. AfD hero (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You are both right, sort of. Ignore all rules means just that. We ignore a rule if following it would be bad for the project. I just don't think that it applies here in particular, and AfD hero hasn't really explained why a keep would be so much better than a redirect. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep would be better than a redirect because the two topics (synthpop and synthrock) are entirely different musical genres. This would be similar to if someone redirected rhythm and blues to jazz - two other musical genres that are related but clearly distinct. AfD hero (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That reasoning is fallacious in the extreme: synthpop to synthrock = rhythm & blues to jazz? Please. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You are correct that the analogy is not perfect. However, with respect to the parameter "related but distinct", the analogy holds. Synthpop and synthrock are related but distinct, as rhythm and blues and jazz are related but distinct. The point of the matter is that related but distinct musical genres should be given separate articles. AfD hero (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment The debate here is getting bogged down, however, it seems to me the whole question about whether the term is in use is a distraction from whether the term can be sensibly defined and verified. Certainly the article as it currently exists is almost entirely OR. The debate therefore should be about whether the article can be improved or whether it's irretrievable. So far no one arguing to keep has been able to produce anything like a consistent definition - there are plenty of mentions in articles about one band or another, but none I can find about Synth Rock as a genre. Even a single compilation CD of the genre, something like "Best Synth Rock of the 80s", would help. After researching the term consistently the best I can say about it is that music critics throw the term around occasionally in the same way that a wine critic might describe a bottle of red as "bright and juicy, green herbal notes, blackberry and white pepper flavors" - sure, all these terms are in use by critics but this doesn't mean that each requires a separate article, or that each critic means the same thing when he or she uses them. There are thousands of music magazines published each year, and the fact that no one arguing to keep has yet produced a single article about the genre - think "a homage to Synth Rock" or "a retrospective of great Synth Rock" - seems pretty telling to me. Debate (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As I've been looking for sources, the main problem I've encountered is wading through the tens of thousands of pages of junk ("check out our synth-rock band on myspace", "band X is incorporates elements of synth rock in their work", "see mp3s tagged with 'synth rock'", "singles interested in 'synth rock'", "revisiting the glory days of synth rock", etc etc etc etc etc...). Finding an article that is actually about synth-rock (rather than using it as a descriptor) is like finding a needle in a haystack. AfD hero (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That link provided is pretty much the sort of thing I was referring to above. Sure, they say "synth rock", but what, in an encyclopedic sense, those that actually mean? Nothing, really. It's the same problem that exists with pages like piano rock; instrument + "rock" does not automatically equal a valid genre of music defined by secondary sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirect My impression is that where randomly used in published / web sources it's just as an idle discriptor, by a careless journalist. Redirect. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Both sides of the argument have legitimate issues. Usage of a synthesizer by a band cannot be a genre definition. Whether a band uses a synthesizer or an acoustic instrument is totally arbitrary. If synth rock is a genre name that can be defined in specific musical terms such as other genres are defined, then it is a legitimate article. The article as it stands now seems to do both, and as such needs to be cleaned up. It also seems to talk about the genre without defining it.Jkolak (talk) 11:07, 28 May 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.