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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic hardcore[edit]

Electronic hardcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Article seems to be original research with no reliable sources for notability. The words are occasionally used together, probably as a descriptive term but I can't find any in depth article about such a genre. neon white talk 17:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Sources provided are mostly reviews that only acknowledge or briefly mention that the subject mixes hardcore and electronics. Outside of listing bands that play music of that style, the rest of the article is pure original research. Seems like more of a trend than an actual genre to me. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KEEP - Sources are provided in the "Characteristics" section, extensively in the "History" section, and supporting the use of the terms "electronic hardcore", "synthcore", and others, for the fusion genre. True, I find no specific references that apply directly to an explanation of the genre, but the information written IS referenced, nonetheless, and the style is practiced by many groups. The fusion of the genres post-hardcore and electronica apparantly has enough information to construct a well referenced article. I see no clear reason to suggest deletion at all. Possibly an "original research" tag, but I don't suggest that either, because the only hint of OR I see is in the "Notable examples" section, and the talk page addresses that issue.----♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 18:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – After a quick glance, the sources you are referring to don't look very reliable. For example, the Sputnikmusic source is a review written by a user, and not a staff member of the site. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because sources from what would be most reliable, allmusic and BBC, do not use the term, and the other sources either seem unnotable or borderline promotional, which leads me to conclude that this may be original research. Kansan (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as idiot's contradiction of terms. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion: Redirect Ok, the arguements are very logical pro-deletion. However, I suggest redirecting the aritcle instead. Information on this fusion can be found here, so that is where I suggest the redirect. Thank you :) ----♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk)

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.