Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubtronica

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubtronica

Neologism. About 200 hits searching, and none at a research site. Mikeblas 16:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologoism. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The initial entry is basic but (hopefully) informative. The term may be an amalgam of two terms but is used to describe a particular sub-genre of music. Hence the term is not a substitute for either dub or electronica. I first saw the term used in music magazine The Wire althought dance music websites, mixtape web sites and record reviews also use the term. I have no idea why research sites don't use the term. However if music reviewers use the term on a regular basis it will eventually be listed.--Ragudave 10:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folktronica is a neologism and musical genre. Should it be deleted as well?--Ragudave 11:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the current discussion, but I can find lots of usage of "folktronica" at media sites (eg, the BBC music pages, a couple of respected review sites, and so on) while "dubtronica" doesn't seem to make the radar.

Neither article is at all useful, though. Compare them to the impressionism article, for instance. I can read that article and have a good enough idea about what the style means that I could go to a museum, see some paintings, and recognize them as impressionist work. After reading either the "dubtronica" or "folktronica" articles, I'd be hard pressed to pick out a song of either genre. The articles don't offer a clue about the history of the genres, where they originated, or their identifying characteristics; they provide no information about the technique, other than describing them as an arbitrary almalgam of other genres.

Worst of all, I've found no references in either article to guide me to authoritative study on the subject. -- Mikeblas 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve — It does not follow that a poorly developed article immediately means the topics is useless. This article is hardly ready for prime time, but Ragudave provides sufficient argument to justify retention (and improvement).

I have said elsewhere that I am in favor of fumigating to get rid of all the subgenres that are breeding in the cool, dark places. Merge and redirect to dance music or house music or electronica. This is a valid subgenre, and the term has currency (ick), but that doesn't mean there is a sufficient amount to say about it for a stand-alone article. Geogre 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a question of should we delete, rather stubify or Re-direct! -- Librarianofages 02:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and improve —M in un ^Spiderman 12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After going through the search results in google, I hardly find any mention of it except in web-forums. There also seems to be a guy with Dubtronica as a profile name. There are a few mention in music sites I am not quite sure are notable. If someone can suggest a glossary page (or like Geogre's suggestion of Electronica)into which this can be merged , I think it shouldn't be that big a problem. If there isn't a suitable candidate, delete. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:V and WP:NEO unless verifiable sources can be cited to establish validity. Scorpiondollprincess 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per Geogre. Having separate articles on Folktronica, Dubtronica, and soon no doubt Reggaetronica (10 ghits) and Bluestronica (118 ghits) etc., makes about as much sense as having separate articles for blue paint, mauve paint, and purple paint. Arbitrarily assigned subsubgenres largely indistinguishable even to aficionados == endless proliferation of stubs unless we adopt a strict policy of merging. — Haeleth Talk 18:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yeah, well, don't look now, but: Category:Shades of orange. Even those articles manage to give a description of the colors that offers more information about discernign them from eachother than these neo-genre articles do. -- Mikeblas 03:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bucketsofg✐ 23:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not call for experts in reggae to improve this entry? I have e mailed a reggae DJ and reviewer for his thoughts on the matter. This sub genre's most famous hit was probably a track used by Levis by Pole. I think it was from their Yellow album... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.165.178 (talk • contribs)

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.