Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion Pop

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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Pop[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another neologism made up by one person. No description of the musical style or development at all. Ridernyc (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A genre of just one band isn't a genre at all. The most charitable resolution would be a redirect to Cud (band), but it's such an unlikely search term that hardly seems necessary. — Gwalla | Talk 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes it clear that it was a short lived neologism and it does not appear to have become notable, since it only was applied to one band.--SabreBD (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term was used for much more than one band - see this, which identifies Cud, Pulp, St. Etienne, Suede and Lush.--Michig (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. The source pointed out by Michig is a trivial mention, not substantive. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was used quite a lot in the British music press back in the day, but these sources are not available online.--Michig (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2010 (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.