Talk:Simpsonwave

delet this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.62.114.203 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? editorEهեইдအ😎 21:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it is a pretty useless article. I'm actually surprised we kept it, so I can see where this guy is coming from, even if he didn't give his reasons. BuyMyCereal (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, whether the article is "useless" or not, the topic is notable, so it makes sense to keep it. editorEهեইдအ😎 13:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Millhouse is not a meme is a meme" is notable in some circles as a "forced meme". This should go in a section on vaporwave, it's not important to have its own article. --Therealelizacat (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still a very weird and out of place article, and it is relatively minor, so I doubt anyone would notice or care if it was deleted. BuyMyCereal (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete/merge?

 * Since this is not an actual genre, and rather a mashup/remix genre mainly utilising an existing musical genre (vaporwave) and existing Simpsons clips, and it is by definition, a cheap joke, could it be best placed elsewhere? Also, I've noticed a fair few of the citations give no real information other than the fact that Simpsonwave is a thing. Hookorcrook (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point I believe it best to delete this article. Either that or merge it into the existing page for The Simpsons by adding a small section dedicated to it. Either way, this article doesn't really serve any purpose. BuyMyCereal (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I dont think so, I think its perfectly fine to leave it as it is as the genre is very much trending. Why not let more people know what it is as the purpose of Wikipedia is? If it dies out, then obviously there would be no reason to keep it. 69.115.151.221 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I am glad this is on here. I got into chillwave, and wanted to learn more about simpsonswave, visually, it is a different and unique experience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teschner1997 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not different enough, in my opinion, to justify a separate page. It's really not a huge enough deal. --Therealelizacat (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe this article should be deleted or merged with vaporwave, as it is the same thing with Simpsons edits that become fleetingly popular for a short amount of time. I feel like this article was written by pseudo-creator Lucien Hughes who just further extended an already made concept, yet is called the 'pioneer' on the page. Regardless, it should be edited to remove the back story about him, as it's irrelevant and out of place in such an article. Kahliimah (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * After seeing previous attempts to delete this page have failed, I still believe the page should be merged with Vaporwave, however I edited the focus on Lucien Hughes somewhat so that it doesn't feel so out of place, as that's where the majority of criticism is coming from here. Kahliimah (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this article should be merged with vaporwave or deleted. Liking the subject is not enough to keep it. Also, most citations only establish its existence and all seem very self-referential. I'm considering putting this on AfD. --Therealelizacat (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Done. Placed on AfD for second time. Also have begun merging things into vaporwave where it belongs. --Therealelizacat (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the big article length, I'm actually now starting to question merging the article into vaporwave. Users are correct that keeping the article only based on the liking of the subject isn't a valid reason for keeping an article, though, but, in my eyes, the amount of significant coverage of fairly big to make a fairly-lengthed article. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Page Author
I feel like this article was written by Lucien Hughes, the kid that keeps being mentioned in the article, purely for his own ego. It's a useless page and should probably be deleted

82.4.247.20 (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * False, false, false I created and wrote the article and did not create the meme, I created the article because it had significant coverage. "Useless" is not a valid argument editorEهեইдအ😎 21:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)