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. --
BDD (
talk) 22:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)reply
I proposed in 2008 for this article to be merged with
jazz fusion, and although several editors protested against it, no one provided a reasonable argument. So now I'm proposing the deletion of this article, or redirection to jazz fusion. It is original research without a single source. Warning templates have been staying in the article since 2008, and no improvement has been made. Λeternus(talk) 09:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. No reliable sources to indicate notability. I have looked and all I can find is
Jazz fusion and fusion as a synonym for
World music.--SabreBD (
talk) 11:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete: The
Jazz fusion is one that has developed through a decent amount of attention and discussion down the years, as per the Talk page. It seems to share a kernel with this article, in its third paragraph. But outside that core, this article just seems to be broad and unreferenced discussion on an arbitrary range of hyphen "genres" that come and go. Arguably it could be morphed into a "List of crossover musical genres" (suitably referenced) but Fusion as named should just redirect to
Jazz fusion.
AllyD (
talk) 18:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. The jazz fusion article is the proper one to keep. This one tries to cover the same material and fails, violating
WP:NOR and
WP:V.
Binksternet (
talk) 23:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirect (no need for a merge) to
jazz fusion. It is a valid term and should point to the existing article. This will also discourage re-creation. —
Gwalla |
Talk 19:38, 27 May 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.
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. --
BDD (
talk) 22:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)reply
I proposed in 2008 for this article to be merged with
jazz fusion, and although several editors protested against it, no one provided a reasonable argument. So now I'm proposing the deletion of this article, or redirection to jazz fusion. It is original research without a single source. Warning templates have been staying in the article since 2008, and no improvement has been made. Λeternus(talk) 09:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. No reliable sources to indicate notability. I have looked and all I can find is
Jazz fusion and fusion as a synonym for
World music.--SabreBD (
talk) 11:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete: The
Jazz fusion is one that has developed through a decent amount of attention and discussion down the years, as per the Talk page. It seems to share a kernel with this article, in its third paragraph. But outside that core, this article just seems to be broad and unreferenced discussion on an arbitrary range of hyphen "genres" that come and go. Arguably it could be morphed into a "List of crossover musical genres" (suitably referenced) but Fusion as named should just redirect to
Jazz fusion.
AllyD (
talk) 18:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. The jazz fusion article is the proper one to keep. This one tries to cover the same material and fails, violating
WP:NOR and
WP:V.
Binksternet (
talk) 23:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Redirect (no need for a merge) to
jazz fusion. It is a valid term and should point to the existing article. This will also discourage re-creation. —
Gwalla |
Talk 19:38, 27 May 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.