Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu-rave
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merge and redirect to New Rave. The old revisions will be accessible in the page history, and any useable and well-sourced content can be merged into the more established and better-referenced article. MastCell Talk 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nu-rave[edit]
- Nu-rave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non notable subject, original research based on a single self published source neonwhite user page talk 23:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are references in multiple web pages, a magazine and on a record releases (all independant) a single self published source. As Neon White knows nothing about this scene I question his ability to ask for the Nu-rave page to be deleted. User:Fluffski 16:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My knowledge of the so called 'scene' if such a thing exist is irrelevant, in fact uninvolved editors are in a far better position to make a judgement. The references are not verfiable according to policy, myspace pages are 'self published' as are most web sites. There is no citations from a magazine or any other fact checked publication to establish notability. --neonwhite user page talk 03:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you clarify what is meant by a "self published source"? I am not affiliated with any of the websites I have used for sources, I have just used them as examples. Also, is there not more than one source? I included two different websites as sources (one of which has scanned magazine articles in it's blog entries, a third source of information which I can't link to directly because they are MySpace blog entries and blocked by Wikipedia) and I believe at least two more of the external links directly mention Nu-Rave on their home pages. I appreciate there is a lot of room for improvement, but I am willing to work on it. I also appreciate that there could be confusion caused between this and "New Rave", but both genres / scenes are well enough established in my opinion to warrant their own pages. As a side note, could you tell me anything briefly about scanning in magazine articles? I would be happy to provide evidence of the Knowledge article because they do not have it up on their own website as yet, but would that be breaking rules? --Ssp212 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SPS can clarify. All sources are currently unreliable and unverifiable according to WP:V and the article makes no claims of notability. --neonwhite user page talk 02:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)
- "Self-published source" doesn't mean content which we (the WP contributors) have published ourselves, but generally content where author = publisher, i.e. with no editorial control. See WP:SPS and self-publishing. Anybody can start a web site.
- Magazine articles can be good sources for this sort of article -depending on what kind of magazine it is (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources); I think Kmag should be OK. But not every use of the word in such a source is suitable as evidence for notability - if it is just an ad-hoc expression a writer invented for a juicy headline, the quote would hardly prove that it is a widely used musical term.
- Uploading magazine scans to Wikipedia is not possible since the magazine is probably not under a free copyright license. But you can quote short passages of text.
- Regards, High on a tree (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless improved - while there might be evidence for some kind of current rave revival (perhaps not the first time that people have claimed one), it hasn't been demonstrated yet that it needs to be described in its own article, and that "nu-rave" is a widely used term for this. The article also lacks any concrete musical information - I understand that it describes nu-rave as an "umbrella term" rather than as an actual musical genre, but what exactly are the musical elements from the "old skool" which producers are taking up again (breakbeats, happy pianos, pitched vocals, ...)? Regards, High on a tree (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some notes on common musical elements.--Ssp212 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal view is that redirecting to New Rave is the way to go as that article is sourced and clearly notable and uses nu rave as an alternative. This article just seems like original research to me and at best the term is very rare neologism as opposed to the more notable use. --neonwhite user page talk 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The New Rave described in wiki is an entirely different scene relating to indie guitar bands rather than Rave music. I agree that the article requires improvement and hopefully additional references will be added in time but to delete the page would be wrong as the Nu-rave scene exists and is growing even if its not currently well documented. User:Fluffski 12:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have now added links to the Knowledge article, which has been scanned and uploaded to nu-rave.com. Is this acceptable as a source of information to establish notability?--Ssp212 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 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.