Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive punk

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. Secret ^account 19:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive punk

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

Progressive rock and punk rock are as distanced as any music genres ever could be. Both have entirely opposite musical agendas (complexity vs simplicity, virtuosity vs. unskillfulness, structure vs. expressive freedom) which is why a fusion is impossible by definition. This is not surprising, seeing that punk rock was created as a reaction to progressive rock. Considering this, the genre of "progressive punk" is as ridiculous a genre as dance-metal, glam-grunge and experimental pop. Certainly, artists can be influenced by elements from both punk and prog but they do not represent a fusion of the genre.

If progressive punk is a legitimate genre, I would like its proponents to provide an explanation of how the liberalism, low production values and simplicity of punk can be combined with the virtuosity, conservatism, high production values and complexity of prog without compromising the elements that define both genres.

If progressive punk is a legitimate genre, it must have figureheads. Can any proponents of the genre's legitimacy provide examples of artists who carry all of the musical traits expected from progressive punk? Instead of merely having punk rock artists influenced by progressive rock or progressive rock artists influenced by punk rock, the artists themselves must possess a fusion so intimate that they can neither be called pure prog or pure punk.

Artists may choose to adopt instrumental techniques and compositional practices used by both punk rockers as well as prog rockers, but if progressive punk is a legitimate genre, its proponents must demonstrate that the artists actually represent a fusion of the genre and not just stand as experimental rock, math rock, post-punk, art punk or others.

If this genre can't explain itself, it has to be deleted. Krunchyman (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe even speedy keep because the nominator doesn't state a valid ground for deletion: while it's a tenable theoretical argument, Wikipedia goes by the sources, not by the opinions of various editors. On the merits, while the current article doesn't have much content, "progressive punk" has been been discussed by reliable sources as a sound and used to describe major bands like Black Flag, Mission of Burma, Meat Puppets, Husker Du and Minutemen [1][2][3], Henry Rollins [4], PiL [5], and more. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism. The neologism emerged after all the bands named by Arxiloxos had broken up; it's a trendy rock journalism term, not a legitimate genre or musical movement. Suitable for an Urban Dictionary listing ("pronk") but not much more. (It's incidentally obvious that the term doesn't have much descriptive utility if Black Flag and Mission of Burma can be lumped together in this putative sub-genre...) —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (neutral for now). I'd like to point out that it is not necessarily relevant to AfD whether a topic is a "legitimate genre" or musical movement, only that it is a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article: in other words, whether it meets WP:GNG. The "legitimacy" of a genre is subjective: we have an article on indie rock, which many have argued is not a "real genre", but many also argue that brutal death metal is a "real genre" but currently that only redirects to death metal. Being an apparent oxymoron is also a red herring. — Gwalla | Talk 20:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might be an idea to redirect to Post-punk defined as "an artsier and more experimental form of punk", which would include many of the 1970s/1980s bands cited (as to a lesser extent might other genres like New wave music, Hardcore punk, and Post-hardcore). More recent bands like Fucked Up don't fit in that classification, admittedly. But regardless of whether it's a separate genre, there's not enough sources to establish notability. If other people have opinions on redirect or even merge, that might be a productive area, but I'm not convinced any of the articles I mentioned are close enough to redirect without explanation. - Colapeninsula (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2014 (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.