Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Classical: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 14:29, 10 February 2022

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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Classical

This stub is entirely original research and obviously cites no sources, thus automatically fails WP:OR and WP:V. --Leon Sword 01:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like an advertisement rather than an article, agree that its obviously OR perhaps to promote the listed groups. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd Prod'ed this one for precisely the same reason that the AfD nomination is being made, so I'm well and truly in agreement here. It's also borderline free of context, since there's no explanation of what actually makes New Classical what it is, rather than just saying "these bands play it". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unattributed and seems to be non-notable. Carlosguitar 11:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be covered, albeit slightly, in the Crossover (music) article, Neoclassicism in general, and to some extent in the List of popular songs based on classical music. I must say however that there seems to be no agreed upon term for this type of classical-modern music hybrid; even the most commonly accepted phrase ("Classical crossover") is often vehemently disagreed upon. I do not think Deletion should be answer, at least for the moment until a broader consensus can be found. Zidel333 20:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the article stood when I looked at it, there's no evidence this isn't a neologism or pure OR. --Gwern (contribs) 05:58 23 September 2007 (GMT)

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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-===[[New Classical]]===
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}}
+<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.  ''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was '''Delete''' [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
+===[[New Classical]]===
 :{{la|New Classical}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Classical|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 22#{{anchorencode:New Classical}}|View log]])</noinclude>
 This stub is entirely [[WP:OR|original research]] and obviously cites no sources, thus automatically fails [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]]. --[[User:Leon Sword|Leon Sword]] 01:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 10: / Line 16: @@
 *'''Comment''' This seems to be covered, albeit slightly, in the [[Crossover (music)]] article, [[Neoclassicism]] in general, and to some extent in the [[List of popular songs based on classical music]]. I must say however that there seems to be no agreed upon term for this type of classical-modern music hybrid; even the most commonly accepted phrase ("Classical crossover") is often vehemently disagreed upon. I do not think Deletion should be answer, at least for the moment until a broader consensus can be found. [[User:Zidel333|Zidel333]] 20:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. As the article stood when I looked at it, there's no evidence this isn't a neologism or pure OR. --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 05:58 [[23 September]] [[2007]] (GMT)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>