Talk:Nu gaze

Untitled

At the very least this article needs to be retitled, if not deleted. "Nu Gaze" hearkens back to terms like "Nu Metal". What's more, the entire concept of "Nu Gaze" bands seem to be the figment of someone's imaginations. The vast majority of these bands are heavily influenced by shoegaze, but are what most people would describe as simply indie. This is not a distinguishible musical movement in any way shape or form!!!!!!!!BROBABOT (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I also believe that this article fails to distinguish between shoegaze and itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.97.5 (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

They are the same thing

I think bands are adding themselves to this list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.139.93 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is a piece of crap with shit references. 213.22.48.185 (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Noone says 'nu gaze' and most of the bands on the list have absolutely nothing to do with shoegaze. 78.52.53.184 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nu-gaze isn't really a thing. Some of these are just recent shoegazerish stuff, some of them are more like dream-pop, and some of them are completely unrelated (No Age, My Brightest Diamond) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.170.220 (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nu gaze? Really? Somebody has to nominate this for deletion because I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.156.189 (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a worthwhile article. There's an article on shoegazing that refers to the early-90s incarnation, but there are a lot of contemporary indie rock bands that are making a new wave of shoegaze, and the two should both be noted. Perhaps this should be a section in the shoegazing article. Also, I removed Crystal Castles, since they're not a shoegaze band, and the references that were cited never called them a shoegaze band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.79.50 (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

I've nominated this page for deletion as there is no distinction between what this article covers and the shoegaze article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.124.249 (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

C I am currently creating the discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nu gaze does not exist as a unique genre

Half of the sources for this article do not mention nu gaze whatsoever. The reliability of the sources that do mention nu gaze are questionable at best. Here is a reliable article which says in no uncertain terms that nu gaze does not exist. Page should redirect to shoegazing.Bartlord987 (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are endlessly pointy, and I'm very certain you are a sockpuppet. Your edit had nothing to do with sourcing, your edit removed links to other articles and I do not for one second believe that you checked the sourcing for every linked article when you made your massive edit. You are very very clearly editing with an agenda and clearly using a newly created account to hide something. Ridernyc (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

None of that makes nugaze real. Bartlord987 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to delete an article, you need to list it at an WP:AFD discussion. This has been done twice already, at WP:Articles for deletion/Nu Gaze and WP:Articles for deletion/Nu gaze, and the result of both discussions was to keep. You're welcome to propose it a third time, but I doubt consensus will be for deletion. Darth Sitges (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You just proved my point. One more edit to any genre article without first establishing a very firm consensus and it will be off to ARV where you will most likely be blocked from editing, Final warning. Ridernyc (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)