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.
Entirely unsourced article about what appears to me an extremely minor subgenre. neon whitetalk 16:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a reference, the Google News results are dominated by subscription-only coverage but more sources exist whether available on the internet or not. --Snigbrook(talk) 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reference doesn't address the subject in enough detail to assert any notability. Subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, claiming they may exist is not enough. --neon whitetalk 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the late 1990s this was not a "minor" subgenre of drum and bass. I agree better sources need to be found, but keep the article and let people work on finding the sources. If you are going to delete this article, there are plenty of other articles about drum and bass subgenres that are smaller subgenres and should be deleted first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.65.128.6 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty notable musical subgenre. Even I know this one, and I mostly loathe electronic music. Ford MF (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article asserts no notability and there are no sources. Use a valid arguements. Your personal opinion isn't really of any use. --neon whitetalk 01:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added what I think are more than sufficient sources to satisfy WP:RS. Amazing what ten seconds on Google can do these days, innit? Ford MF (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide excerpts that prove this is significant coverage. I still support the merging of many sub genres to the Drum and bass page or a seperate 'sub genres of Drum and bass' page. --neon whitetalk 13:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you should be any less able to click the citation links and search than I am. Generation Ecstasy, published by an academic press contains an entire chapter on techstep. Ford MF (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2008 (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.