Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big room house


 * 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. Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. If you want to discuss undeleting this article, please request it at deletion review, not on my talk page. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Big room house

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Revolves around a possibly fake genre. I've given the article the opportunity to add more sources but the only one added was from a blog which I believe blogs are deemed an unreliable source. F-22 Raptör Aces High ♠ 18:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although there is a slight distinction from progressive house, Big Room House does not need its own wiki. A lot of the artists mentioned are not specifically aligned to producing just Big Room House. The majority of them have released one or two songs, if any, that are considered "big room." Also the definition of Big Room House is very vague and the origins are completely wrong.- Csharp1990 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.155.219 (talk)
 * Delete. It can't stay without reliable sources, despite my belief the genre is distinct from progressive house. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This new (and distinct) movement in EDM is undoubtedly taking the scene by storm, dominating the sets of DJ's at most major festivals, and also sparking substantial controversy. Just because it's hard to find formal documentation on it doesn't make it unimportant, this is the case with virtually every genre of electronic music. There's tons of buzz about big room in the EDM community, I will be adding sources that feature commentary from movers & shakers of the 'scene.' - User:Keepinternetfree 21:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The blog citation you mention is a secondary source to an interview, which would be considered a primary source. If you do not like it being a blog, then the original transcript can always be found. Regardless, more citations are currently being found and added; as of this post there are five. I also back Keepinternetfree's statement: citations on a new musical genre are difficult to find, much less for electronic music, and even less for one so new. As much as I personally dislike the genre, I must vote for keeping the article. Myconix (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article says nothing about it being or referencing an interview.--98.113.47.2 (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We can't take your word for it. We need fully cited references on the page now. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Big Room house is dominating the charts on electronic music download cites and is currently one of the highest played sub genres of modern electronic music.  For this reason it should be kept. It is also easily distinguishable from most forms of EDM as well as sharing some characteristics of progressive house.  It is currently in high demand and is considered a very dynamic sub genre of EDM.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.11.214 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to question some of the ethics of this article. Why does source 1, source 3 and source 5 not mention one thing about big room house? (Really, Ctrl+F Big Room, nothing). Why is it that 3 of the 5 sources are under "Criticism"? Really, the only passable source on here is source 4 and that itself isn't quite appropriate for Wikipedia.-- F-22 Raptör Aces High ♠ 16:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  19:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete It may be a separate genre, but that does not really matter if there are not reliable sources to indicate that. Reliable sources have not been forthcoming, despite time and encouragement being supplied. It clearly fails WP:NOTE.--  SabreBD  (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete whether it's "real" is, I guess, debatable. Whether it's possible to source it reliably though is not in question.  It isn't. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  05:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per SabreBD.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to F-22 Raptor's claims (and other skepticism), I'd like to point out that perhaps a major source of contention in this debate is the inclusion of the word "house" in the article title. As this is a genre composed from a mash-up of others, I don't think calling it "house" music is necessarily accurate. Articles (such as the sources F-22 Raptor pointed out) call the musical movement by varying terms, including big room EDM, big-room dance, etc, but the essential big room sound they refer to is the same across the board (as are the debates surrounding it). It might be wise to change the article title to Big room/Big-room (with redirects from similar terms included). Electronic music is generally quite underground and dissipated/discussed through informal channels; if we delete articles about clearly pertinent trends in EDM simply because traditional sources take a bit of work to find, Wikipedia would undoubtedly find itself lagging behind as a source of information in that department. Sorry for droning on, I will find/add some better sources tomorrow to support my points. - User:Keepinternetfree 04:53, 29 December 2013 (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.