Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Classicism

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. Dakota 01:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post Classicism[edit]

Non-noteworthy neologism and original research. A search for "Matthew Church" "post classicism" turns up only a single cached blog post. Adding a hyphen brings the same results. Note also that this article is not about Post-Classical Music as musicians and art historians use the term; it's an entirely different term. Shimeru 00:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern Delete Danny Lilithborne 00:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending further citation. I can find references to various musical styles identified as 'post-classicism', but they do not seem to match the material in this article. I also share Shimeru's inability to find references to 'matthew church', other than the rather terse link in the article. Kuru ^talk 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete or re-write The term seems to exsist, but the article seems to pretty much non-notable. As above, more references needed to keep it as is. Robovski 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a repeat offender, only giving itself a new name this time. I remember an AfD not too long ago for a term describing some supposedly "new" music genre called "Classical rock," or something like that, which was claimed to be invented by someone named Matthew Church, and it was basically described as a new genre of music blending classical with rock (gee, that's new?). I tried searching, but I couldn't find the AfD, but when I read this, it definitely rang a bell. Anyone else remember seeing this before too? Wavy G 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was wrong. I found the Afd discussion [1], but it wasn't this guy (although, the description and the style of the article were extremely similar to this one). I don't know why, but that name "Matthew Church" just sounded extremely familiar. Wavy G 04:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the rare event when this term is used, it doesn't refer to the subject of the article. Opabinia regalis 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism and likely vanity (Ace church (talk · contribs) = Matthew Church? Has only edited on this article and on Matt church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was speedied as nn-bio.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. I knew that name sounded familiar. Wavy G 16:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - by all excellent reasons by WavyG.--Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I pointed out later that I was wrong--not that I don't think this article is non-notable (enough negatives in that sentence?) by any means, but I'd hate to see an article deleted based on false information. Although the subject is clearly a non-notable neologism, and it would seem, it is also a conflict of interest. Wavy G 04:43, 7 November 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.