Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drag (music genre)
- 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 no consensus. and here's a little something for the users who chose to sling mud at each other rather than discuss the article itself
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Drag (music genre)[edit]
- Drag (music genre) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article for the last few months has simply been an ad space on wikipedia for special interests. It's also based on lies/gossip and not facts. More info: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Drag_%28music_genre%29#Salem:_NOT_DRAG
May I also request, before jumping to conclusions in regards to whether the sources are reliable and not pure promotion and reporting on future news (most artists mentioned have ONLY just recently made releases a couple of months ago. these articles had been written up at the beginning of the year) and assumptions:
source: http://www.dummymag.com/features/2010/09/20/salem-interview-you-re-not-scared-it-s-music-/
Part of the interview reads as follows:
There are lots of names that have been pan handled about but you guys describe yourselves as Drag, right?
John: We never described ourselves as Drag.
Jack: I think someone said that we did but we haven’t described ourselves as that.
They're referring to sources earlier in the year, such as a music critic from The Guardian and another from Pitchfork. Here is the Guardian article, which was reported first: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/mar/08/scene-heard-drag
Scott Wright (from the music department at the Guardian writes):
"When Salem first stepped from the shadows in late 2007, people had fun describing their creepy and creeping sound: screwgaze, cave crunk, ghost juke and crimsonwave were just a few of the proposed monikers. Now, as a herd of imitators (White Ring), admirers (Fostercare) and like-minded lost souls (Balam Acab and oOoOO) haul themselves into the murky, flickering spotlight, Salem themselves have come up with the best genre name of all: drag.
Again, reporting false information. They point out Salem as the forefront and supposed pioneer of this so called genre, which Salem have denied ever labeling their music under "drag", as it sates in the aforementioned. Others were simply pigeonholed and called imitators, simply dragged along the writers marketing purpose: http://www.nypress.com/article-21562-brooklyns-vanishing-witch-house.html Diskotech (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - yet another non-notable music genre neologism, delete as per nom. Aeonx (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - User Diskotech has made strong vandalism campaign because all his contributions that contained false facts has been undone by many other users (revision history). This genre is definitely notable. It has been citated in countless reliable sources. --GreenZeb (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Because I deleted spam and promotion by non-notable artists and labels, that makes it vandalism? That's preposterous. Your profile on here saids you're from Latvia, that's where the IP reverting back such false information and non-notable acts came from. Interesting. Diskotech (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It certainly IS interesting that you seem to believe that my IP-the IP "reverting back such false information and non-notable acts"- comes from Lativia. Curious, since as I am a student currently dorming at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, as my IP will confirm, and thus, unsurprisingly, reside in Chicago. While your removal of certain artists and labels is open to debate, you have further repeatedly added the profoundly incorrect claim that it's cultural origin was in the 90's, continually added the unfounded original research claim that Billy Corgan was a notable influence, repeatedly added the unsupported and untrue claim that Drag is the same thing as Horrorcore and Illbient, and continually added the "marketing scheme" claim, which is unsupported by anything outside of your personal speculation. Furthermore, your claim that it has been used as "ad space on wikipedia for special interests" is incorrect-I added most of those artists and labels, and I am not involved in any of those bands and labels, nor do I personally know anyone who is. I added them because they are relevant to this subject. If you feel they are not notable, I'm open to debate about this. This page has numerous cited notable sources making reference to it's existence as a musical term, and while there is debate about this term, the fact that it exists as a notable term in the music press is indisputable. Thus, it passes WP:MUSIC. Your advocacy of it's deletion are blatantly motivated by your personal distaste for the genre and not by anything resembling a credible argument for it's deletion. You have repeatedly disrespected Wikipedias policy of neutrality, and seem to think Wikipedia exists as a method to publish your own personal opinions. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not getting into debate in regards to your IP (that is not in question), let alone getting into an argument over it (this is not the place). I will repeat though, there was someone with an IP from Latvia doing similar things to what you were doing, in regards to reverting material that can be easily deemed as publicity (which I deleted a lot off from here). I was not the only one claiming similarities to Illbient. If you compare the two supposed genres, you start to see striking similarities. This was brought up months ago it seems, from another source. Which I agree with. Further more, I never stated Billy Corgan is a notable influence. I merely reverted back that Billy Corgan can be seen as a pioneer for this supposed genre (hence 90s), as he seems to fit these supposed 'drag' artist overall "sound", even though 'Eye' single was never dubbed this 'drag' term that has only appeared in recent months (although, all the more proves the 'drag' term is not needed, as it easily can be identified by other labels/genres/terms that currently exist). Which actually is very similar to other genres and in fact, can be covered in other well known established genres, that people have agreed on and has been pushed and acknowledged by various artists etc. Drag/Witchouse has not been acknowledge by those accused of supposedly labeling a certain "sound". It's a lie and Salem have cleared that up. Also, your assumption based on my personal taste is simply that: assumption. It can easily be said you're clearly backing and involved in these special interests groups surrounding all this supposed "hype". If we are gonna start accusing and assuming, we may as well assume I am the Queen of England and you are behind Tri-Angle records (a supposed drag label that emerged just a few months ago), a label that a music critic from the Guardian supposedly claimed has 'kept track' of this so called movement, without even releasing a single release from any artist at the time. The Guardian was reporting on something that had not even happened yet. How is that logical, let alone appropriate reporting? As for 'marketing scheme/agenda', I have explained it to you in the discussion page on said article. This is clear irresponsibility of journalism. This is why I've stated, do not confuse respectable reporters with music critics. Two different departments within an organization. One of the other does not justify or make the other more creditable. For one, one reports facts. The other apparently likes to report gossip/rumour/lies, as pointed out by Salem. But really, this comes to no surprise, the entertainment industry is known to report gossip/lies for marketing and profit gain. Diskotech (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- CommentThe claims you restored repeatedly, even if they were originally made by other people, were unsupported original research. Restoring unsupported original research because you happen to agree with it is vandalism. My statement on your dislike for the genre is not speculation at all: you have repeatedly made it clear in your posts that you feel the genre is a lie and a marketing scheme. Furthermore, in The Guardians article on the subject, it was not saying that Tri-Angle had "kept track" of anything. That statement was made in regard to Robin Carolans blog, XXJFG, which has, in fact, done exactly that. Your claim that music critics "report gossip/lies" is absurd-music critics criticize and describe music. If wikipedia did not consider the music press to be a reputable source for citations regarding music, wikipedia would have little, if any available sources regarding music, and this would leave wikipedia a considerably weaker and poorer source of information.Blackmagnetictape (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Then you were guilty of the same thing, Blackmagnetictape, in regards reverting back false information. I can sit on here all day and play games on personal attacks if you guys like, but off wikipedia. Also, I'm not saying all music press is not reputable. I am stating that it HAS happened before, in regards to reporting false information. This is why all the more sources should be double checked, regardless of whether it is a known media entity. Nothing more Diskotech (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- CommentThe claims you restored repeatedly, even if they were originally made by other people, were unsupported original research. Restoring unsupported original research because you happen to agree with it is vandalism. My statement on your dislike for the genre is not speculation at all: you have repeatedly made it clear in your posts that you feel the genre is a lie and a marketing scheme. Furthermore, in The Guardians article on the subject, it was not saying that Tri-Angle had "kept track" of anything. That statement was made in regard to Robin Carolans blog, XXJFG, which has, in fact, done exactly that. Your claim that music critics "report gossip/lies" is absurd-music critics criticize and describe music. If wikipedia did not consider the music press to be a reputable source for citations regarding music, wikipedia would have little, if any available sources regarding music, and this would leave wikipedia a considerably weaker and poorer source of information.Blackmagnetictape (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not getting into debate in regards to your IP (that is not in question), let alone getting into an argument over it (this is not the place). I will repeat though, there was someone with an IP from Latvia doing similar things to what you were doing, in regards to reverting material that can be easily deemed as publicity (which I deleted a lot off from here). I was not the only one claiming similarities to Illbient. If you compare the two supposed genres, you start to see striking similarities. This was brought up months ago it seems, from another source. Which I agree with. Further more, I never stated Billy Corgan is a notable influence. I merely reverted back that Billy Corgan can be seen as a pioneer for this supposed genre (hence 90s), as he seems to fit these supposed 'drag' artist overall "sound", even though 'Eye' single was never dubbed this 'drag' term that has only appeared in recent months (although, all the more proves the 'drag' term is not needed, as it easily can be identified by other labels/genres/terms that currently exist). Which actually is very similar to other genres and in fact, can be covered in other well known established genres, that people have agreed on and has been pushed and acknowledged by various artists etc. Drag/Witchouse has not been acknowledge by those accused of supposedly labeling a certain "sound". It's a lie and Salem have cleared that up. Also, your assumption based on my personal taste is simply that: assumption. It can easily be said you're clearly backing and involved in these special interests groups surrounding all this supposed "hype". If we are gonna start accusing and assuming, we may as well assume I am the Queen of England and you are behind Tri-Angle records (a supposed drag label that emerged just a few months ago), a label that a music critic from the Guardian supposedly claimed has 'kept track' of this so called movement, without even releasing a single release from any artist at the time. The Guardian was reporting on something that had not even happened yet. How is that logical, let alone appropriate reporting? As for 'marketing scheme/agenda', I have explained it to you in the discussion page on said article. This is clear irresponsibility of journalism. This is why I've stated, do not confuse respectable reporters with music critics. Two different departments within an organization. One of the other does not justify or make the other more creditable. For one, one reports facts. The other apparently likes to report gossip/rumour/lies, as pointed out by Salem. But really, this comes to no surprise, the entertainment industry is known to report gossip/lies for marketing and profit gain. Diskotech (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Agreed, not yet another non-notable music genre invented purely to generate interest for otherwise unknown artists ([1]). Lacks creditability. Too manyinconsistencies and no notable artist seem to be pushing it. Lies are not facts, agreed.Dhloe (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Diskotech, you can't vote from multiple accounts. It is against Wikipedia's policy. --GreenZeb (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - It's not my account, quit making false accusations. Any administrators can feel free to check it, please and verify. At this point you're on the verge of being labeled childish and uniformed, GreenZeb. It also discredits your opinion on anything in regards to this article, as you're clearly spreading false information at this point. I'm not sure what you're interests are in trying to create controversy, to be honest, but it seems to be personal ones at this point. Going by your standards at this point/rules, we may as well in fact, accuse you of being that IP from Latvia posting that promotional material on the wiki entry after all. This is ridiculous, you guys are turning this into a personal attack and debate on me, rather than discussion the article/issue. This goes against wiki standards, i may add, last I recall.Diskotech (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- — Dhloe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 01:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Diskotech, you can't vote from multiple accounts. It is against Wikipedia's policy. --GreenZeb (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep has reliable sources, even if it may be something of an neologism. I don't see anything here promotional in nature. (|nn bands/etc that could be added can be removed and the editor warned/blocked as needed.) OSbornarfcontributionatoration 01:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Well, yeah, I've tried deleting most of the promotion, thus far. Also, it either is neologism or it's not. You cannot have it both ways. Which is it? It's like saying yes and no, at once. That solves/contributes nothing and we are back at ground 0, from that point of view. Did you actually bother to read the sources, by the way? The Guardian pitched it. Pitchforked pitched it. Simply because they are known names, does not justify it's reliability of the source [2]. Every source should be double checked and not assumed. That's irresponsibility at it's finest. They were reporting on future news. Read it and you'll see. Again, it's also based on assumption and lies that have been confirmed [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diskotech (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I don't believe WP:NEO explicitly bans neologisms, just says to avoid them (because of the promotional problems.) I would wait a bit on this AfD as there seems to be some sort of conflict going on here between the nom (Diskotech) and another editor. Please assume good faith. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 03:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment With good reason and makes sense, as this has been a promotional problem, when you look at early versions of this article/entry. Alright then. Diskotech (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think promotional problems are really a reason to delete here. You yourself have said you fixed the article, and looking forward we can delete/revert spam as needed. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Noted. However, what about the false information being reported in regards to claiming Salem labeled this supposed genre? That's been the primary souce/push for the "genre". In fact, the only reason why this is even in question. Salem have denied any such claims, repeatedly. Thus proving to be false information being reported. What do you believe should be done about that? Diskotech (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep Notability is clearly established, although the article could possibly be renamed to one of the genre synonyms (most likely witch house). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
