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. Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. If you want to discuss undeleting this article, please request it at deletion review, not on my talk page. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big room house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Revolves around a possibly fake genre. I've given the article the opportunity to add more sources but the only one added was from a blog which I believe blogs are deemed an unreliable source. F-22 RaptörAces High 18:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article says nothing about it being or referencing an interview.--98.113.47.2 (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can't take your word for it. We need fully cited references on the page now. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want to question some of the ethics of this article. Why does source 1, source 3 and source 5 not mention one thing about big room house? (Really, Ctrl+F Big Room, nothing). Why is it that 3 of the 5 sources are under "Criticism"? Really, the only passable source on here is source 4 and that itself isn't quite appropriate for Wikipedia.--F-22 RaptörAces High 16:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be a separate genre, but that does not really matter if there are not reliable sources to indicate that. Reliable sources have not been forthcoming, despite time and encouragement being supplied. It clearly fails WP:NOTE.--SabreBD (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to F-22 Raptor's claims (and other skepticism), I'd like to point out that perhaps a major source of contention in this debate is the inclusion of the word "house" in the article title. As this is a genre composed from a mash-up of others, I don't think calling it "house" music is necessarily accurate. Articles (such as the sources F-22 Raptor pointed out) call the musical movement by varying terms, including big room EDM, big-room dance, etc, but the essential big room sound they refer to is the same across the board (as are the debates surrounding it). It might be wise to change the article title to Big room/Big-room (with redirects from similar terms included). Electronic music is generally quite underground and dissipated/discussed through informal channels; if we delete articles about clearly pertinent trends in EDM simply because traditional sources take a bit of work to find, Wikipedia would undoubtedly find itself lagging behind as a source of information in that department. Sorry for droning on, I will find/add some better sources tomorrow to support my points. - User:Keepinternetfree 04:53, 29 December 2013 (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.