Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-disco

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 no consensus. Is this a real genre? Is the genre used sufficiently by reliable sources to demonstrate its existence as a separate one? Is there enough coverage for it to be notable? There is no consensus on any of these three vital questions here, with blanket statements for and against each being made. Neither side seems to have a monopoly on persuasive arguments: there is no consensus to delete here either by vote-counting or by strength of argument. ~ mazca ^talk 00:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-disco

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

Plenty of sources, but "post disco" existing as a distinct concept appears to be synthesis of a bunch of sources that use the phrase in passing to simply denote that whatever they were talking about occurred after the rise in popularity of disco. Gigs (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources [1] in various music magazines and we could have post-disco for the same reasons as we have Post-punk etc. Independent mention, that is, not WP:SYNTH. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the way those sources mention the phrase. "Post-disco R&B", "Post-disco funk", etc. It is almost always a modifier, not a concept of its own. Gigs (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "It is almost always a modifier, not a concept of its own." ~ WP:POV. Also the "real" genres like disco/rock/pop/ can be modifier (or it can be a fusion genre) = disco-funk pop, country-rock jazz, blues-rock, post-punk jazz, electropop metal, indie-rock country, etc. This is not an real argument. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Deletion discussions are not required to adhere to neutral point of view. The goal of them is to express points of view. Gigs (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - ^{[citation needed]}. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NPOV only applies to encyclopedic content. Not talk pages, and definitely not AfD discussions. Gigs (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        thats_the_joke.jpg, show me where's on the wikipedia is the rule that is saying "articles - NPOV, AfD - POV". Also you're wrong, there are some rules about AfD. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are welcome to solicit a third opinion on the matter if you'd like. Gigs (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, seriously, I've think about it "long time" and found out that we should don't remove this article, we should create a boogie (genre) article (already done) and in post-disco article we should mention that is an era that influenced mostly 80s genres like hi-nrg, Italo, hip-hop, boogie, house, techno, etc. My opinion is that post-disco is an important era in the music history. Change it, not remove. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Power.corrupts. Post-disco IS a real genre (it's the same like post-punk, post-rock, post-country, post-post.. etc .. and meaning is all the same = after the punk, after the rock, etc), it's NOT only an era. We can also speculate that Disco is not a kind of music, because RollingStone defined it per the word "discotheque" [2] -> disco is all type of music that is playing on discotheques. ~~So much WP:SYNTHESIS gonna get ya on Disco article, I recommend to nominee a Disco article~~. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC). By the way, *cough* Google test: 76,900 raw results. Last.fm have tag with post-disco (there are same artists that are in the post-disco article). It's just a proof that something that is called as "post-disco" is real. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC). This is the problem that is needed to be fixed. We should run a positive campaign, we should avoiding any personal attacks and we should be more cooperative. We change post-disco article from the ground. People has spoken, that article is full of OR synthesis and other crap, we should clean that dump. Don't be shy. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Let's make a final decision! RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of search results in Google is not an argument for the existence of this article here. So isn't the Last.fm directory. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the last sentence. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Also by the way, I found this http://www.sonicclash.com/michael-jackson/thriller/ (not a blog): "Not many artists could pull off such a variety of styles (funk, post-disco, rock, easy listening, ballads)" - this is a mention (about "post-disco is a genre") that Appletangerine un always wanted. Seems like repeating "Post disco is a genre" will have some result here. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's main source, AllMusic, seems to just be using "Post-Disco" to fill a gap in its hierarchical taxonomy of music genres, providing parentage to certain genres (house, in particular), which otherwise would've been too closely aligned with disco or left as orphans. By AllMusic's own vague definition, it's not a single genre but a range of genres which arguably aren't related, except by virtue of having been part of the era immediately following the one dominated by disco. AllMusic is not a reliable source for genre definitions (as has been brought up in relation to electronic music and heavy metal), and the fact that they scrubbed their contributors' names from most of their site a while back further undermines their credibility. Other sources haven't provided a convincing case for post-disco as a genre, per se, but rather as a temporal qualifier. I might support a rename and change of focus to "boogie" (the main "post-disco" genre which has more traction), but at this point I don't think boogie, being limited to the realm of probably a few thousand DJs worldwide, is a mature enough term to warrant more than a paragraph in the main Boogie article. —mjb (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, however boogie article is saying nothing about some "boogie disco" from 80s... is it this line: "In the late 1980s and the early 1990s country bands released country boogies"? Maybe post-disco is in real some country music subgenre, I don't know. Boogie-woogie is not related to 80s- "stripped down funky electronic not-a-disco music". However, AllMusic with support of anonymous is a WP:RS anyway --> that provides post-disco IS a real genre. In Wikipedia there so many articles that they've have only 1 source. US garage... what-the-something is "US garage"? That article is full of WP:SYNTHESIS and there's no reliable sources, why AfD post-disco? Why not US garage? I can put here over 9000 wikilinks with no sources and full of unpublished synthesis, if you want. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: By all means, if you find other poorly sourced genre articles with dubious notability, put them up on AfD. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good argument. — Gwalla | Talk 19:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would rather vote for deletion of that messy article. The WP:SYNTH concern of that article is not new, and it had been discussed before: the first discussion, the second discussion. It has already been noted for several times, that none of the references in that article mention a genre called post-disco: all of them, from the first to the last, are just a carefully compiled into a collection of the uses of the prefix "post-" and "disco-" together, found in any sources that could likely be considered as reliable. Moreof, some of those references simply advocate someone's POV and do not list any reliable sources: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Many of those sources are misinterpreted: one brief analysis of the sources here.
The most reliable source for the article, a short AMG article on post-disco never says in text that post-disco is some genre of music. Here is the link for that article, you may read it yourself: [7]. The claim that post-disco is a genre of music appeared because that AMG article page has a huge 'Genre' word, located above the note/article itself. I still would be curious to see how that page could be accurately used to reference the claim post-disco is a genre: it's simply impossible, as that information is absolutely insufficient for that type of claims and every try to point to that word linked to what is said in the article itself will be a kind of Original Research. In a few words, what the AMG article actually says is that post-disco is a particular era in the history of popular music: "While it's entirely accurate to say that disco led to house, there's a distinct era between the dissolution of the former and the solidification of the latter — covering roughly half a decade, between the late '70s and early '80s — that is often termed post-disco. " -- Appletangerine un (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So post-disco is a genre, that AMG source says that. Are you trying to discredit a reliable source? They say that between disco and house era is an post-disco era, but they also trying to explain what's "post-disco" as a genre. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think that timelessly repeating "Post disco is a genre" will have any result here. The article doesn't support your opinion, and that is. What it describes is exactly what it defines, eg. an era in the history of popular music. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say what I think or not, you're not in my head. It's not an AMG definition, it's your definition, that's the difference. I see, we're blind or something. Let's read the head of the article: "allmusic - allmusic, allmovie, allgame"/"who is the US president? Hillary Clinton (click)"/"--> explore music... / explore by.../R&B/Hip-Hop/Urban/"Post-Disco (send to friend)"/"Genre". See? genre, g-e-n-r-e. ジャンル. Genere. 流派. (Google translator 4eva!) RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have always seen this as "Barely a Genre or a Fringe Genre" but existing as a wiki article is another story so looking at the sources and especially seeing the rationale by user:mjb above i agree to delete this article using same rationale as mjb--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a conspiracy. All haters of the "post-disco" article are here, so your vote reminds me WP:JUSTAVOTE/vote per somebody. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may remind you of that but it is not please read the section to that portal you put to try and discredit my opinion and read the section called "per nom" though i believe in this case user mjb(who is not the nominator) has made a powerful arguement with his rationale in my opinion but the determining if that is a strong enough rationale is up to the ADMIN to decide not me,also stop being paranoid it makes it seem like you have an unhealthy obsession with this one subject and does not look good on you also take heart in the fact this is not just a vote really anyway, there must be a good rationale for deletion.Not to mention wikipedia is not a Democracy--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As he mentioned in the first thread above (in case anyone missed it), RockandDiscoFanCZ has started a Boogie (genre) article to apparently provide a home for the post-disco article's relatively uncontentious material about what some DJs are calling Boogie, which is the post-disco-era's re-funkified but still kind of disco-ish wave of R&B, and he is adjusting infoboxes accordingly. As I said in my vote comment, I don't think this genre is yet notable enough for an article all to itself, but I won't oppose it; Boogie has a following on a number of blogs, and may well have more coverage in reliable sources than I'm aware. —mjb (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. So we have "post-disco" as an era that gives birth to styles like Techno, Boogie, Alternative dance (AMG fabricated genre), House, etc. Most of sources saying something like "techno/house/etc is a post-disco dance music", so post-disco also should have some footer to indicate House/Techno/Boogie/etc is a form of post-Disco music (it's not a dogma that everybody knows it, some people would say: "electropop music is a musical style from 1940s and typical electropop artists are Pantera and Red Hot Chilli Peppers"). I guess post-disco is a bridge between disco and house articles and that's the why post-disco should be "saved". RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources exist, meanings differ, but the concept is notable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be a notable concept, article is not adequately sourced JBsupreme (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems little doubt from the references provided in the article that the term "post-disco" is used by reliable sources. The question is, are they using the term to refer to basically the same thing, or is it an ad hoc adjective being used to mean different things, making the article synthesis. My reading of the source material provided in the references is that they are talking about essentially the same thing: dance music during a somewhat vague but still identifiable time period. As is argued above, "genre" is probably not the appropriate way to describe it, but the article as currently re-written more appropriately refers to an "era", which seems more in accord with the sources. And there are more than enough sources for notability. So since it is notable, sourced, and not synthesis, it should stay. Any other problems can be solved through editing. --RL0919 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR-created term Lots of the references are inaccessible, but there is a pattern in those I see that "post-disco" is meant literally, not to define a genre. There are several which specifically refer to a resurgence in some other named genre (e.g. R&B) after the decline of disco. Indeed, the related list article (also up for AFD has a column for "genre" in its listings. It's also clear from the talk page discussion that this classification has been controversial from the beginning. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment who says "post-disco" is a genre? (forget that AMG crap, it's just about that article) O.o ~ P.S. also the term is defined by AMG as a genre, so it's not original research, read article and references correctly, thanks. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 14:49, 28 December 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.