Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilderness folk

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. Wizardman 01:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness folk[edit]

non-notable neologism. Seems to only be used by one person in this context after a quick google trawl. Ged UK (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only reference to this style of music is on the term originator's MySpace page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The term "wilderness folk" is important as per the fact that it is a sub-genre of folk. There are several other bands using the "wilderness folk" tag as well. As an artist I feel this information should be available for when someone hears the term and is looking for a definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cweecwee13 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please! Every band is the only band in the world that plays its own unique sub-genre. We wouldn't include a page on True Nekro Post-Funeral Doom Metal either, so to speak. While wikipedia seems like the right place to get info like this, it's just not notable enough. Stijndon (talk) 18:59, 12 August 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.