Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amigacore


 * 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. No prejudice against a redirect to a notable mention. czar 04:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Amigacore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't find any non-trivial coverage about this, seems to be an extremely limited sub-genre of techno music. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (very weak, and that's a maybe). Redirect to chiptune. This is probably better as a dictionary definition on Wiktionary. Amigacore is a valid genre. There are numerous sources that mention this term, some reliable like this Guardian article and this book and this book. However, because it originated in the 1980s before the web, it would be difficult to find anything online that provides in-depth coverage of this genre. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no justification for keeping unreferenced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is actually incorrect. Your assertion isn't aligned with any policy I know of except WP:BLP, but this isn't a biography. A subject can be unreferenced and still be notable. That's why we have AFD discussions. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete without objection to something along the lines of chiptune. That publications mention it is reason to include in a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. While the sources don't technically need to be in the article to show notability, they do have to exist (significant coverage in reliable sources, not just usage of the term). Given there are no sources, there's no content to merge anywhere. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe redirect to chiptune then? ~Anachronist (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.