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.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indietronica[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Can find no reliable sources about "Indietronica" or any of the terms that redirect here (listed in the article's intro) Merzbow 23:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, unreferenced neologism i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful music genre name. --Brz7 09:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the article to survive this AfD, reliable sources must be added to demonstrate the term's notability. (Strong Bad's email is not a reliable source). I looked around for 30 minutes on Google, findarticles.com, etc., and found absolutely nothing. The term is not used by music critics, is not used by bands; in other words, it is completely non-notable. - Merzbow 16:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like indie rock, indie pop, indie electronic is used by music listeners and music critics (not artists, they don't like to tag their own music) to refer to indie music with electronic influences. I found many articles on e.g. allmusic.com ([1]) which is edited by music critics. So maybe it would be the best to make Indie electronic (being a lot more notable than indietronica), the main article - just like indie pop/rock. --Brz7 21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Indie electronic" alone has more promise, but I still don't see any articles about the term, just articles that use the term. Per WP:NEO: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term". - Merzbow 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unrefernced, original research and non-notable. Were this a notable term it would be in common use throughout the music press and easy to reference. But since this isn't the case, it's not notable. And, in response to the above useful is not the same as notable. A1octopus 23:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above arguments. This is pretty clearly a neologism that has yet to achieve sufficient widespread use.--Kubigula (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2007 (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.