Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Creative

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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Creative

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

As far as I can tell, Allmusic invented this genre/classification, and they are the only ones (of note) to use it. Personally, I think the term is so vague as to be meaningless (here is their page about it). The article cites a second entry at Allmusic ([1]), but it does not mention the term "Modern Creative", nor does it actually mention all the musicians listed in the article, much less place them in a distinct "Modern Creative" scene/genre. I've made previous comments (e.g. in July 2007) that we (Wikipedians) have set up a number of articles and categories based on Allmusic's classification scheme, for the simple reason (as far as I can tell) because Allmusic does it that way. But with such vague terminology, I'm not sure that Allmusic's genre/categorization scheme is something we ought to emulate. I have already added an attributed bit about Allmusic's Modern Creative genre to the free jazz article (diff). Delete. Gyrofrog (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Gyrofrog (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JAZZ and WP:GENRE notified. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Normally Allmusic is considered a reliable source but this is a very brief and not very helpful. A google book search turns up just one source I can get to, and that seems to suggest that this is just an alternative name for free jazz. I will keep looking before I make a decision.--SabreBD (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just thought I'd add something I have also added at Talk:Modern Creative: the first (1994) edition of the Allmusic Guide to Jazz assigns "modern creative" to a number of artists who don't seem (to me) stylistically similar (compare No Wave), although it (the book) never defines what "modern creative" means. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I'd previously said on the article Talk page, this is a borderless and arbitrary categorisation of music/ians. If you're "modern" and "creative", why shouldn't you get dropped in here? No genre, no affinities, just a couple of commonplace words being run together. AllyD (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been a professional jazz reviewer for years (though not for AMG) and a fan for much longer and can assure you that absolutely no-one in the music world (musicians, fans, any reliable reference guide OTHER than AMG) uses the term. And I have absolutely no idea what it means to boot. Unless someone can provide convincing citations then it should go. -- ND (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I simply cannot find sources that indicates this is anything more than an occasional tag. There has been a genuine attempt by regular editors to find material for this topic, but it seems that it is not available.--SabreBD (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2010 (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.