Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartland rock

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland rock[edit]

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

I think this line from the article sums things up nicely "The origins of "Heartland Rock", like that of so many genres, are as nebulous and difficult to describe as the genre's definition itself." Seems like it's just plain old light rock, rock, adult contemporary. There is an endless list of other ways to describe this "Genre". Unreferenced and no improvements for over 2 years. Ridernyc (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article ought to be referenced, but it's clear that this can be done. There are numerous Google News and Google Books hits for this subgenre which clearly refer to what this article is talking about. I'm not a big supporter of dividing and subdividing musical genres, but "heartland rock" does seem to be an accepted term for the kind of music typified by the musical style that made Bruce Springsteen, Bob Seger, and John Mellencamp famous. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is definitely a genre; there are over 140 Google Books references of it, with widespread agreement that late 1970s/1980s Seger, Springsteen,and Mellencamp form its core. The genre's subject matter and era are both much more specific than "plain old light rock, rock, adult contemporary". The nomination is confusing "needs improvement" with "needs deletion". Wasted Time R (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is undeniable that this is a genre, with at least a few famous artists in. All Wikipedia needs is someone who actually knows something about it, and will edit it accordingly. I don't know, is there any way you can nominate it for high need for improvement? As Wasted Time R stated, the nomination is confusing "needs improvement" with "needs deletion". --06SmithG (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2009 (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.