Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brutal jazz
- 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brutal jazz[edit]
- Brutal jazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable adjective-noun combination. Hits on the search of "brutal jazz" are typically of this nature: "Brutal Jazz influenced Metal" (from amazon.com, where "brutal" doesn't even necessarily modify the word "jazz"). The article is unreferenced and appears to be spam for a band, also the subject of a (now contested) speedy nomination. Bongomatic (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteFails notability, though I heartily support local jazz bands in small towns like Sheridan, Wyoming. Edison (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A spam for a band? no not at all an addition, an elaboration on the progress of a band in my local area, information on new sub-genre in it's infancy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbjazz7 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Encyclopedias are for things that are already notable, not that might be notable in the future. Bongomatic (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP. "Genre" that consists of one non-notable band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. As it is associated with only one band, it is essentially indistinguishable from the band and therefore qualifies under per WP:BAND. Also, this was speedily deleted once before. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NEO, WP:BAND. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brutally delete as a pointless neologism invented to publicise a single non-notable band. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this genre preformed by many jazz bands and musicans in Wyoming, it's more of a genre specific to Wyoming that excusive to one band in wyoming Greenthumb134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Could the artical just be edited to remove the band an add a bit about being a genre of wyoming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbjazz7 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are there reliable sources which discuss it? If not, the article should be deleted. If there are, add them as references, or at least identify them here. Edison (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wyoming is clearly the worst state to live in. trust me it is terrible to have to visit, let alone live in, and it's residets know it. If Wyoming wants to add "brutal" to their jazz, let them. They have no real impact.Freemerson (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User:Freemerson's only edits are to this AfD discussion, to make the above comment. As a reminder, this discussion is not about whether or not Wyoming sucks; it's about whether there is a distinct, notable entity called 'brutal jazz', whose existence can be backed up by reliable sources. And I think there isn't. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Supplementary comment - User:Greenthumb134's only edit is the one above, too. Fancy that. And User:Tbjazz7's only edits are all closely related to this topic. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brutally delete but with a catchy syncopated rhythm. Neologism from an unnotable band. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2008 (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.