Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brostep


 * 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. v/r - TP 02:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Brostep

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable neologism - "horny raw dong music" is a little strange as a description. Indeed the website purporting to support this very matter says "Because no one knows what the fuck brostep is, and they are judging a sound by its label" - I would suggest that as no-one knows what it is then we can hardly OR it into existence. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable neologism  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 01:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Several references have been provided, but they all appear to be blogs, forums, Twitter, etc., with no reliable independent sources. If more reliable sources appear in the future, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Last time I checked, Twitter and Yahoo! Answers are not reliable sources. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Then remove those references, the soundcloud reference is absolute gold.. The article isn't biased or condescending in anyway shape or form and it is even backed by one of the most mainstream Dubstep producers.. What is the problem here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avoidpi (talk • contribs) 05:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources. To the above, Soundcloud certainly isn't a reliable source, as defined by our guidelines.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly needs more solid references? How do I find references for a particular sound? There are plenty of blogs and such that all have the same opinions on its place in Dubstep.. Would adding more references to actual Dubstep producers help the article? I know a few who have addressed "Brostep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.66.190 (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ONEDAY. Wikipedia isn't the place for something someone non-notable decided it would be fun to talk about on twitter. No reliable sources, nothing that makes even come close to passing WP:N. Trusilver  07:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What constitutes a sub genre though? This definitely does as, like I've said many times, it is recognized by the community and the artists themselves.
 * You will notice that throughout our discussion on this subject we throw out a lot of policies, but are not terribly clear on what they mean. Wikipedia operates under a lot of guidelines, some of them are fairly flexible, others aren't flexible at all. One of the very inflexible policies is our policy on notability. To quote a section of that policy: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. Things that do not grant notability include sources like Twitter, Facebook, message boards, blogs, etc. Notability also requires secondary sources. This means that it's not enough that something allegedly exists, it must be reported on by sources that are separate and neutral from the primary source. Trusilver  05:19, 16 September 2011 (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.