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 redirect to Hardcore punk#Electronic music. redireting for attribuation purposes. If the merged para gets removed from the article let me know and I can delete this Spartaz Humbug! 15:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electronically influenced hardcore[edit]

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

An article on this topic was deleted three times as Electronicore and once as Electronic hardcore (see AFD). (Update: An article on this subject may have also been previously deleted as Synthcore and Trancecore, two additional articles that the author has redirected to this page.) From there it was merged with post-hardcore, but as of March 2011 the information was heavily marked up for being poorly sourced, and much of the section has since been removed. While this new incarnation features 54 sources (at the time of nomination), very few of them are reliable sources. Most of them are non-notable reviews or user-generated content (as opposed to being created by the website's staff). The general notability guideline is looking for sources that "address the subject directly in detail," but while sifting though all of the references, I couldn't find one that was actually about electronically influenced hardcore, only reviews that trivially mention an electronic influence in said album. The connection between these reviews was formed by the author and is thus original research. This article gives undue weight to a non-notable trend that's only acknowledged by a minority of album reviewers. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "very first reference" is from DeadPress. The reliability of this source was questioned here at the reliable sources notice board. No one in this discussion deemed it notable, and most noted that the site could potentially be sending out harmful malware to its readers. The "fourth reference" you mention in this discussion was deemed unreliable in this conversation at Wikiproject albums, and otherwise doesn't seem to be contributed by a staff-member. The Sputnikmusic source you mention in this discussion, and I believe all of the other ones in this article, are not written by staff members of the website. The biographies on that website are essentially Wiki-style pages (note the "Edit Band Information" button on the left side), and staff-written reviews are differentiated by the word STAFF in red lettering next to the author's name (as seen in this review). Fezmar9 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drastic edits I drastically simplified the page because it was brought to my attention that much of the information was poorly referenced, and the article made the trend appear to be significantly more notable than it truly is (see edit). I'm also replacing references. I replaced the Sputnikmusic source with a statement from Sumerian Records (which appears to have been the original source for the statement in the first place). I'll continue to replace and improve references until this article is at an acceptable position. ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 01:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP There are plenty of references here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.240.120 (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this article be merged with nintendocore. to my knowledge, no term has been coined yet for the electronic/hardcore genre but there are many bands who use trancecore, nintendocore etc... i would put all those "electronically influenced hardcore" genres into one article. SebDaMuffin (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like suggesting that the article be merged to Industrial metal. Although the style is related, Nintendocore is a stand-alone genre that involves a fusion of video game music and hardcore punk. This is a different topic. If anything, if the page cannot remain then it should certainly be redirected to Electronic rock.
All references have been redone (April 25, 2011). Many of the above arguments may have been resolved and may now be void. From this statement forward, please discuss the article based on its current status.
Comment As simple as the article now is, it is reliably referenced. It contains appropriate, factual information about this recent trend. I no longer see any cause for deletion. ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 01:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The massive list of unreliable sources was only one of the five or so concerns listed in the nomination. This topic still doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines due to the lack of sources that are actually about electronically influenced hardcore. The references you should be looking for need to "address the subject directly in detail" and contain "more than a trivial mention." So while you've adequately demonstrated that the listed bands perform this style, what you haven't done is demonstrate that this style itself is notable. Let me use another genre as an example. The bands Isis, Neurosis, Cult of Luna and Pelican all play (or at one point in their careers played) a mix of sludge metal and post-metal. So why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on post-sludge-metal? There are no published articles on this topic, and it's sufficient enough to list both of these genres in these artist's infoboxes separately without having to form an entirely new article like post-sludge-metal. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, atleast a major concern of the article has been addressed. If no sources can be found that directly describe the fusion and the article is deleted based on lack of notablility, atleast I have a properly referenced paragraph that I can add (in part) to a few related pages (like post-hardcore for example). --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 17:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability comments The article written by a staff member of The New Review specifically addresses the trend. The reference by Sumerian Records mentions the trend itself, but with a nonspecific nature. The other references acknowledge the trend by applying it to specific bands or musicians. I'm also looking for additional information. ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 17:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to Hardcore punk#Electronic music. I've added the most reliably referenced portions of this article to the section "influence on other genres" and subsection "electronic music" on Hardcore punk. You're right that the fusion isn't notable enough for its own page. Reliable references regarding the fusion do exist though, as you can see at the link above. Considering that other Wikipedia pages may contain links to Electronically influenced hardcore, it would be more appropriate to blank the page and redirect it (and maybe prevent edits) than to delete the link entirely. Although the fusion has become popular, popular enough to form a well referenced paragraph, it is not notable enough for its own article. A redirect here would TRULY be most appropriate.
"Electronically influenced hardcore" is an implausible search term and would not make a suitable redirect. A Google search turns up 37 hits out of the entire internet, and the majority of them are Wikipedia articles or mirrors of Wikipedia articles. It's not a common enough of a phrase that people would be looking for it. This "trend" is also supposedly a mix of various styles, and could theoretically redirect to a number of different articles. Why should this redirect to hardcore punk and not metalcore? or electronic rock? or dubstep? or nintendocore? Also, since this information was deemed original research and an improper synthesis of sources, this probably doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned that the term "electronically influenced hardcore" is not essential to the trend at all. You won't find that term anywhere because its a term I invented to describe the fusion. The trend has no "official term." And it makes PERFECT sense to redirect the article to a Hardcore punk#Electronic music. This article was ALL ABOUT electronic influence on hardcore punk subgenres. The information found at Hardcore punk#Electronic music is in no way OR, and besides this isn't the place to discuss whether or not content on a separate article is appropriate and should stay, this is the place to discuss whether or not THIS ARTICLE should redirect to anywhere on Wikipedia. See Talk:Hardcore punk for that. Reliable information on the topic can be found at Hardcore punk#Electronic music. It would make no sense to delete the article instead of simply removing all content and redirecting there. What would be the advantage of "red links" across Wikipedia where a link to this page exists. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to redirect the link to a page that contains useful information? --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 02:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You make it seem as if "red links across Wikipedia" would be highly damaging. I count only nine article links to electronically influenced hardcore. That's hardly damaging at all, especially when you consider "across Wikipedia" means 3.5 million articles. They could easily be updated by hand, or I think there's even a bot for this specific task. In this case, creating red links is really a non-issue. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Fezmar. And I actually just went through and reformatted those nine links in anticipation of delete. ps: Malconfort, I don't get how the link to Incantation (band) is relevant at all (but your point is well taken). --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 23:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, take it easy and smoke weed because it's just a pun [or "a term I invented to describe the fusion"]. --Malconfort (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol... :P
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.
More