Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funny punk

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. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny punk[edit]

Keep, The page serves a purpose, and is written by a credible writer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.214.158 (talk • contribs)

Non-notable genre classification. Only one source and it does not look very reliable. A google search shows only 19,100 hits, almost all of which are unrelated (I know, google isn't the best source for establishing reliability but still...). I think it's probably a neologism The Ungovernable Force 08:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, since I'm the nominator. The Ungovernable Force 08:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 08:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WesleyDodds 09:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; one source of dubious reliability (a userpage at a university website) doesn't fill me with confidence. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fake subgenre. Punkmorten 15:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the source is a reproduced article originally written by Donny the Punk, a noted writer for several top punk zines on cultural and musical criticism. How is that unreliable? Ungovernable, how can you tell that "almost all" of the google hits are unrelated? Did you look through all 19,100 results? Most of the hits on the first few pages are from huge online stores selling t-shirts. A search for "funny punk" -shirts -shirt gives about 11,700 hits. Looking through the first four pages, about two to four sites on every page use the phrase in the obvious context of a musical classification. Looking through the first ten pages, there are about five instances of the term being used in published music journalism to refer to a certain style of music. Ecto 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, yes, I only looked through the first few pages. If it really is a notable genre chances are I would have found some mention of it within those first few pages. Can you link to some of those other sources? I agree that some people may use this term, but I don't think it's really notable. Anyone can come up with a new genre classification, but I don't think this is really an accepted subgenre by many people. The Ungovernable Force 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ungovernable.. yo, so this is what im thinking, "funny punk" yeah that is just... how can i say it.. FUNNY!!! what the punk man, "hey, dudes, yeah lets go to that funny punk show down the street!" , "OK".. naw that never happened... but what i think this is actually describing it what we might want to call "satirical punk" i dont want to create neologism, but there does seem to be a trend and some precedence to suggest that this exists. As you can see from the edits i made today, there are definitely a number of bands and individual songs which would apply. I use the term "satrical punk" because that is what The Dead Milkmen are called in the first sentence of their article... i dont know who wrote that but i would agree with that description, but also note that the term their is linked to the two separate works, "satrical" and "punk" individually. If we were to rename "funny punk" to "satrical punk," then we could also change The Dead Milkmen qualifer accordingly. The problem then becomes finding precedence for the existence of "satirical punk" which might be possible from the Donny the Punk article? Xsxex 22:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a fine distinction between descritptive terms and descriptive genre terms. Just because an adjective or something appears right before the word punk (and for that matter, rock, metal, pop, folk, etc.) does not mean it is being used in a genre context by whoever wrote the piece.WesleyDodds 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, I did not say this was an actual genre, but more than anything, I think there is actually some evidence that this is a "tendency" or within punk. This evidenced by the existence of a number of bands which could fit the bill and the fact that The Dead Milkmen and Butthole Surfers and others are significantly different makes an arguement for it. Yet wikipedia is not the place to create new qualifiers. We'll just have to wait for some to appear from external sources. Xsxex 02:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's exactly how I feel Xsxex. The Ungovernable Force 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a genre per se - if anything, it describes individual bands, but that doesn't constitute a genre any more than bands like They Might Be Giants constitute "funny rock". Tpth 23:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another made up genre not remotely resembling punk --Xrblsnggt 02:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never heard the term, although its mention as a genre by Donny the Punk is interesting. Also, I am unable to use my apostrophe key or copy text for some reason - apologies.--Switch 04:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I went ahead and emphasized your "delete" for you. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a made-up genre and possible neologism. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:47, 4 August 2006 (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.