Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance-pop


 * 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   no consensus. Further discussion of moves, merges, and other editorial type decisions can take place on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dance-pop

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

What is exactly "dance-pop"? I guess dance-pop is just all dance-oriented pop music, dance-pop is not a genre. Only source in the article is All Music, it says: "Dance-Pop was an outgrowth of disco" (see that capitalization) - it reminds me a similiar problem with Disco-Pop and Post-disco. I propose a move of this article to disco article section disco or dance-pop mentioning in Disco. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I would like to take some time to look into sources for this one. For information for the moment, the best source I can find to support this is as a genre is, but the same author seems to suggest that this is the same as disco. It is not clear to me at the moment how this can be distinguished from, say, Hi-NRG.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Extras: dance-pop was always a WP:OR problem, and this lame-sourced edition (see dance-pop) is in the Wikipedia since 1. 6. 2007, 13:14 . ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also it seems (source no #2) like he means [dance] pop/disco music, but he's not mentioned genre. Source no #1 (nice source) author puts dance-pop in the relation with new romantics (not a genre too), bubblegum (pop, probably) and power pop. But still it looks like "dance-oriented pop music made by Spice Girls, Bananarama, Kylie Minogue, Paula Abdul and Stock, Aitken & Waterman", not a genre. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Comment: The fact being is, its sort of useless to keep or delete the article, because all music genre are still based on theory, which over 90% of them aren't proven. All music genre article right now pretty much uses the Template:Infobox Music genre. Theoretically citing things in wikipedia that doesn't have a methodology is synthesis, (WP:SYN) and citing theory are considered fancrufting / culting. (WP:FANCRUFT)
 * So here's my suggestion, since they are really no understanding in music genre yet (aka studies on musicology ethnomusicology, sociomusicology, zoomusicology is nowhere near completion) nor is there any scientific structured concept, hypothesis, model, theory, visualization...etc being formulated or proposed in music genre (yet). I think we should create a speculative fiction template similar to Template:Speculative fiction all and Template:Sex in SF as seen in philosophy theory, science fiction, LGBT/BSDM topics and request expert attention to expand on it and wait until there is a valid research that we can cite. List, Glossary, Index article likewise to List of science fiction genres are also accepted. Inline citation will need to verified very carefully in subarticle probably like much forms, beat, melody, rhythm, tone, variation and direct them using Template:Selfref if necessary likewise to article Pronoun.
 * Note: Template:Infobox Music genre doesn't use follow any sort of hierarchy, it only give the background information of the genre, and since we don't have enough understanding about music genre, obviously there is no suggested standard of documentation to follow likewise in other industry. --173.183.102.184 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think deletion is not a good idea, dance-pop is for music history significant, but dance-pop should be merged with disco article, because according to AMG source, dance-pop was "product" of disco. Moving the article - support or oppose? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: As long there is a new movement that get created/conjured up again without a structured method/way of doing things, there is going to another article created and we are just going to be an endless warzone. I really suggest reviewing past music genre articles and undelete them and re-reviewing them. Stop acting irresponsible and not giving users the time to improve an article, be legitimate for heaven sake. If most navbox in wikipedia can make use of their time in transwiki a lot of information onto Wiktionary regardless of verification then we should do for the same in wikipedia. The policy are for content monitoring they are not for technical information monitoring. Meaning, an information may follow the fallacy of composition of logic, but its still have a form. (aka just because a math equation is incorrectly that doesn't constitute it isn't an equation, it just an unbalanced equation). --173.183.102.184 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Request. To be honest I cannot understand what point is being made here. Are you saying that we should not delete because it will be re-created? If that was true we would not have a deletion process. Or perhaps that there is no point in trying to define what is a genre. It is not an easy matter, but it is possible to achieve a consensus over these issues, that is how the process works on Wikipedia. Perhaps you could provide a concise summary of your argument, as a brief version may be easier for editors to engage with.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  kur  ykh   00:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete. Partly tautologous ("dance pop is dance-oriented pop music") and partly doomed to have hopelessly muddled inclusion criteria. This entry casts the net pretty wide, which doesn't make it obvious that the term "dance pop" is used in a clear way to pick out a specific genre. Hairhorn (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. After looking through the sources and following the above discussion, I reached an opinion almost identical to that of Hairhorn above, so I second his/her vote. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 03:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and move to disco as a sub-section, as suggested by nom. I have been unable to find further sources that can be seen to outline this as a distinct and notable genre.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep article is based on sources, AfD appears to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dlabtot (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's based on sources, but the sources don't seem to demonstrate that this is a well-defined term that's actually notable. Hairhorn (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's based on sources, that even doesn't exist. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Term is widely used, and has a definition. Definitions: AllMusic.com; Real.com. Use of term (from just the past few days): Chicago Sun Times Jan. 29, Variety Jan. 28, New York Post Jan. 29, Guardian Jan. 16. --BaronLarf 08:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence of a term being used isn't necessarily evidence of a consistent (or notable) definition. See Articles for deletion/Radical pacifist for similar points. And Allmusic manages to get all sorts of stuff wrong, some of their band bios are laughably inaccurate. Hairhorn (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, is All Music a RS at all? Some say these "anonymous" contributions (I mean these genre definitions) are um.. anonymous so it is not a RS. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Allmusic is one of the most reputable online sources for music. Just saying. — ξ xplicit  06:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew it! Thanks for your answer. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2010 (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.