Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punk jazz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Punk jazz

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Punk jazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant WP:SYNTH violation. Not a single one of the sources in this article uses the term "punk jazz" nor supports its existence as a coherently defined genre. Extensive searching on reputable music sites only turned up false positives where multiple genres were listed; e.g., "...regardless of whether you played punk, jazz or folk music..." Everything else was just unreliable sources like Reddit, Discogs, Genius, or Instagram. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There are multiple sources mentioning punk jazz ([1] [2]) or using the term to describe musicians ([3] [4]). It's an easily notable genre, even if the page is in less than good condition. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, then WP:TNT is the answer. The third source even admits that it's not a "real" genre in the same way that mallcore or boyfriend country. are just informal terms for a type of music with no clear origins or definitions. And the last seems to be one individual musician pushing the term as a neologism in the same way that Jimmy Buffett has called his music "gulf and western". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is absolutely a real genre, despite what you think, as the earlier two sources (that aren't just describing a musician) clearly state. Mallcore and boyfriend country are also not really genres, just slang used to describe terrible music. (Both also have literally zero formal sources on them). And WP:TNT is only reserved for dire cases (particularly copyright violations and potentially defaming content). This is not so bad to warrant that. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It clearly needs to be gutted and rewritten from scratch. As it stands, not a single source in the article uses the phrase "punk jazz" at all. Are you willing to put the legwork in, or are you just gonna let the article stink up Wikipedia forever or hope and wish and pray that it'll somehow fix itself? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter how the article currently stands. There exists suitable sources, and thus it is a notable topic for including within the encyclopedia. The information presented on this page isn't entirely wrong and will provide the framework for improvement in the future. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, you're expecting the article to somehow fix itself. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It's had plenty of time to "fix itself" and it hasn't happened. WP:DEADLINE is not an excuse to just sit there with your thumb up your ass and expect everyone to do the heavy lifting for you. If you want the article fixed, YOU do it. WP:BURDEN says so. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it should be deleted, and I explained why. (I even provided a couple of decent sources per that same WP:BURDEN you cite). However, if you just want to get into rant, knock yourself out. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You know damn well WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a valid argument. If you want the article kept on those sources alone, THEN ADD THEM. ADD THEM. ADD THEM. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:SOURCESEXIST: Don't just claim that there must be sources out there somewhere. Instead, prove it, by providing them. I provided sources in this discussion per guideline. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    THEN WHY DID YOU NOT ADD THEM TO THE ARTICLE?! DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO ADD THEMSELVES?!?!?! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read these carefully: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service and Wikipedia:Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify.
    Fixing the punk-jazz article is fairly low on my list of priorities, but I also don't think it should be deleted. (And participating in a discussion takes a lot less time and effort than rewriting and editing articles, especially as I type this on a phone.) Why don't you add the sources to the page? I know you can write fairly good prose and format citations. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I see this same cycle Every. Goddamn Time.
    1. Article is nominated for deletion
    2. User says "keep, sources exist, here they are"
    3. Several other users say "keep per editor who found sources"
    4. AFD closes as keep
    5. Nobody adds the sources to the article
    6. Article is still a trainwreck 10+ years later without a single word of it changed
    7. Sources are still nowhere to be found except in the AFD page or worse yet, go 404 with no one able to chase them down
    8. Lather rinse repeat
    It's absolutely infuriating. If YOU found the sources, YOU add them to the article. Don't just expect everyone else to do it for you. WP:BURDEN says the ball's in your court if you're gonna say "keep per these sources I found". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please understand the general consensus about how AfD works. This is not a venue for cleanup. This a venue for determining a subject's notability and its worthiness of being included in Wikipedia. As the policy page states: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. That applies here. Another policy that may be helpful is WP:PROBLEM. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleanup is not why I sent it to AFD. I sent it because 1.) the sources did not use the term "punk jazz" at all, meaning that it was violating WP:SYNTH and 2.) the sources I did find were all false positives that just used the words "punk" and "jazz" consecutively, thus meaning I was unable to find any sources that corroborate its existence as a genre. Of the sources you provided, only the book seems even remotely convincing to me. The third source even goes out of its way to admit that "punk jazz" is not a real genre, so how could it possibly be used to support the alleged existence of such? You can't fix an article with a source that says "this isn't even a thing". That said, I did apply some WP:TNT and start afresh with the one source I deemed halfway valid, so let's see what comes of this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An article in JazzTimes isn't a good source to you? And the third article does not state that all. I still don't understand how you arrived to that conclusion. It simply says the phrase is "vague and dopey" not that it's not a real genre. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Vague means it's not a real genre, in the same way that "mallcore" or "boyfriend country" are vague. Hell, even bro-country and butt rock are vague. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TenPoundHammer@Why? I Ask Alright, the two of you, please cut the nonsense. I've added all the information I found relevant from the sources provided, the AfD discussion can now proceed, taking into consideration what is currently on the page. Please remain civil at all times, and don't SHOUT at other editors. I expect better of experienced editors like you.
    As a side note, I suggest reading over Ten Pound Hammer's TNT edit. Although most of the article was irrelevant and unsourced, I think a few sentences might be salvageable. Toadspike (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was also a section about "Jazzcore", although I don't know if there are enough sources to warrant a mention. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here are my two cents on this rather hotly debated AfD: Considering Ten Pound Hammer has already TNT'd most of the page (befitting the username), that is no longer a valid reason for deletion. The other question is whether punk jazz is a "real genre". Looking at the sources currently cited, it would seem to me that it is. A few notable musicians and a notable club are associated with the genre, showing either that this is a "real genre" or that those pages should be AfD'd too. While I realize that notability is not inherited, that was not the issue raised by the nominator; the question was simply whether "punk jazz" is a real term, or something entirely invented by Wikipedians, the latter of which does not seem to be the case here. The final point of contention, whether sources must be cited on the page to count towards notability, is thankfully now irrelevant, as nearly all sources listed here have been added. Best, Toadspike (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Punk_jazz&oldid=1090074357"