Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psych folk

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. BJ^Talk 06:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Psych folk

Psych folk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article has no sources and is essentially a list. Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I don't see a delete rationale in the nominator's comments. Being a list is fine, we even have featured lists. The article is only "essentially a list" because other material it once had has been removed (some of it by the nominator, apparently). For example, it used to look like this. Having no sources is fixable (see WP:PROBLEM). So unless someone suggests a reason for its deletion, I don't see any need for this discussion. If you think it is unsourceable, or not-notable, or whatever, then please say so and explain your reasons. AndyJones (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I do think it is unsourcable and unnotable.Hoponpop69 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Why? AndyJones (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Because no sources have ever been shown, and no assertability has ever been shown.Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
      • That's a circular argument: you think it's unsourcable because it has no sources. Have you looked for sources among the 177,000 google search results for "psych folk" (in quotes)? I don't know what you mean by "assertability". AndyJones (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Suggest a speedy close, unless the nominator (or someone) would like to suggest a reason for deletion that isn't WP:JNN or WP:PROBLEM. AndyJones (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we should revert to this and add a rescue tag to encourage people to work on this page; it's certainly a sub-genre of music and could be researched further. WorthyDan (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Striking my speedy close since there is now further discussion. Restoring my weak keep. AndyJones (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and do not close unless sources are provided. Waving a hand at a Google search and telling others to search through it for reliable sources is not the way things work. It is the responsibility of the people who are suggesting that the article be kept, to do the sourcing. Corvus cornix_talk 23:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I'm with you on the fact that this article needs some serious fixing, but it's definitely a valid genre of music. We should try to fix bad articles, not take them out back behind the barn and shoot them. --Roman à clef (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep A well-known subgenre used as a tag for many artists and albums on Wikipedia. Lots of reliable sources to draw from. Definitely worth expanding. TheMolecularMan (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep It's a real sub-genre and we should encourage people to work on weaker articles not just delete them. Saying 'Google search will turn up some good sources' is perfectly legitimate; and no-one's going to do that research while the page may be deleted at any time. WorthyDan (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • That's an odd claim. If somebody is interested in seeing the article kept, then it should be those same people who would be interested in looking for sources and making sure the article is verified. I would certainly change my !vote if valid sources were found. As it stands now, it fails WP:V. Corvus cornix_talk 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete: Another compound phrase of two easily combinable genres. Why not psychedelic folk? Why not Folk-psych? Not encyclopedic, just a list as said above.Cosprings (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The following was added by a newbie to the talk page. I'm copying it here as it seems to be pertinent to this discussion. AndyJones (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Psych folk is a valid genre. A verifiable source for Psych folk would be the feature articles in Dirty Linen Magazine, one of the most respected Folk magazines in the world. They have had at least three feature articles in three different issues on new Psych folk bands written by writer Lahri Bond. Issue #131 from August/September 2007 issue is a good example. http://www.dirtylinen.com/linen/131/131psych.html is a link to an on-line over-view of the article. The other issues are #130 June/July 2007 and #136 June/July 2008. I think if you do enough research you will find that New Weird America is a new name for a genre and that Psychedelic Folk has been around much longer. Another great resource is the PVHF radio producer Gerald Van Waes from Antwerp, Belgium. The link to his website is http://psychevanhetfolk.homestead.com/. Gerlad Van Waes is an authority on Psych Folk, Acid Folk, and other similar genres. Easyryder 7:38, 19 September 2008
• Keep, a well-known subgenre of music. 178,000 Ghits would seem to indicate that the term is in wide use. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:20, 22 September 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.