Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psych folk: Difference between revisions

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)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• I do think it is unsourcable and unnotable.Hoponpop69 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? AndyJones (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because no sources have ever been shown, and no assertability has ever been shown.Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • I think we should revert to this and add a rescue tage 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)[reply]