Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronically influenced hardcore


 * 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   redirect to Hardcore punk. redireting for attribuation purposes. If the merged para gets removed from the article let me know and I can delete this Spartaz Humbug! 15:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Electronically influenced hardcore

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An article on this topic was deleted three times as Electronicore and once as Electronic hardcore (see AFD). (Update: An article on this subject may have also been previously deleted as Synthcore and Trancecore, two additional articles that the author has redirected to this page.) From there it was merged with post-hardcore, but as of March 2011 the information was heavily marked up for being poorly sourced, and much of the section has since been removed. While this new incarnation features 54 sources (at the time of nomination), very few of them are reliable sources. Most of them are non-notable reviews or user-generated content (as opposed to being created by the website's staff). The general notability guideline is looking for sources that "address the subject directly in detail," but while sifting though all of the references, I couldn't find one that was actually about electronically influenced hardcore, only reviews that trivially mention an electronic influence in said album. The connection between these reviews was formed by the author and is thus original research. This article gives undue weight to a non-notable trend that's only acknowledged by a minority of album reviewers. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete At first I thought it was just poorly formatted, but investigating the sources I encountered exactly the problems described above. Many of them are not reliable and the text is based on synthesis of which involves taking passing comments out of context. Can a single reliable source be produced that describes electronically influenced hardcore? If not I think it has to be deleted.-- SabreBD  (talk)  15:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * STRONG Keep The very first reference in the article begins by specifically addressing the trend. The fourth reference also mentions the trend, again not just applying it to one individual band. Sputnikmusic states that "there has been a surplus of "electronica/hardcore" music." Most of the reviews and bios used as sources CLEARLY demonstrate a fusion of electronic music and hardcore punk subgenres (although your right that most simply apply this to a single band or musician). It's impossible to deny that this trend has become very notable. Also keep in mind that the page DOES NOT EVER suggest that "electronically influenced hardcore" is a musical genre. In fact the term "electronically influenced hardcore" is not the "title" of this fusion, and is not essential to the article. It's just a fitting term used to describe the broad fusion. So of course I wouldn't expect a reference to exist that SOLELY discusses the fusion. Just because these references discuss the fusion in relation to specific bands doesn't mean the fusion is not notable.  ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫    ...    (Talk)    23:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional comment The article electronically influenced hardcore makes ONE essential claim. The entire article is based on this claim. The rest of the page simply gives examples of the truth found in this claim. That claim is found in the opening sentence: "Many modern practitioners of hardcore punk subgenres such as post-hardcore, metalcore, and screamo have been influenced by electronic music." This is claim is completely accurate and THOROUGHLY referenced! Consider this: A reference that primarily discusses the fusion of these subgenres and electronic music is not even essential to prove the accuracy of this claim. What is needed are references that show that "many modern practitioners" of hardcore punk genres use electronic elements. The references that follow that statement show that there ARE post-hardcore, metalcore, and screamo acts that use elements of electronic music. So, the primary claim of the article is referenced as truth.   ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫    ...    (Talk)    00:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional comment This article may look like a repeat attempt of the article "Electronic hardcore" (which was rightfully deleted) but said article claimed that "electronic hardcore" was a distinct musical genre. This article simply notes that there has been an increase in the use of electronic elements among post-hardcore, metalcore, and screamo groups.   ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫    ...    (Talk)    00:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The "very first reference" is from DeadPress. The reliability of this source was questioned here at the reliable sources notice board. No one in this discussion deemed it notable, and most noted that the site could potentially be sending out harmful malware to its readers. The "fourth reference" you mention in this discussion was deemed unreliable in this conversation at Wikiproject albums, and otherwise doesn't seem to be contributed by a staff-member. The Sputnikmusic source you mention in this discussion, and I believe all of the other ones in this article, are not written by staff members of the website. The biographies on that website are essentially Wiki-style pages (note the "Edit Band Information" button on the left side), and staff-written reviews are differentiated by the word STAFF in red lettering next to the author's name (as seen in this review). Fezmar9 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Drastic edits I drastically simplified the page because it was brought to my attention that much of the information was poorly referenced, and the article made the trend appear to be significantly more notable than it truly is (see edit). I'm also replacing references. I replaced the Sputnikmusic source with a statement from Sumerian Records (which appears to have been the original source for the statement in the first place). I'll continue to replace and improve references until this article is at an acceptable position.   ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫    ...    (Talk)    01:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  STRONG KEEP  There are plenty of references here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.240.120 (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Principally for the benefit of the above IP user, putting strong in front of keep/delete or using capitals will not make any difference to the result of the debate and it is not a vote so only reasons really count. The article has been improved by removing some of the text and dubious sources, but at the moment there are still a lot of these left, particularly the Sputnikmusic ones and some of the use issues remain. I think it is fair enough to give time for interested editors to find alternatives and to improve the article, so I will wait and see how it looks in a few days, but I do not feel the notability and reliablity are established yet.-- SabreBD  (talk)  15:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest this article be merged with nintendocore. to my knowledge, no term has been coined yet for the electronic/hardcore genre but there are many bands who use trancecore, nintendocore etc... i would put all those "electronically influenced hardcore" genres into one article. SebDaMuffin (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be like suggesting that the article be merged to Industrial metal. Although the style is related, Nintendocore is a stand-alone genre that involves a fusion of video game music and hardcore punk. This is a different topic. If anything, if the page cannot remain then it should certainly be redirected to Electronic rock.


 * All references have been redone (April 25, 2011). Many of the above arguments may have been resolved and may now be void. From this statement forward, please discuss the article based on its current status.


 * Comment As simple as the article now is, it is reliably referenced. It contains appropriate, factual information about this recent trend. I no longer see any cause for deletion.   ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫    ...    (Talk)    01:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The massive list of unreliable sources was only one of the five or so concerns listed in the nomination. This topic still doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines due to the lack of sources that are actually about electronically influenced hardcore. The references you should be looking for need to "address the subject directly in detail" and contain "more than a trivial mention." So while you've adequately demonstrated that the listed bands perform this style, what you haven't done is demonstrate that this style itself is notable. Let me use another genre as an example. The bands Isis, Neurosis, Cult of Luna and Pelican all play (or at one point in their careers played) a mix of sludge metal and post-metal. So why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on post-sludge-metal? There are no published articles on this topic, and it's sufficient enough to list both of these genres in these artist's infoboxes separately without having to form an entirely new article like post-sludge-metal. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete That is almost recentism of a "musical neologism". We used to call this unpublished synthesis of [poorly] sourced content. Also, post-metal is post-rock fused with sludge metal, considering heavy metal a vague term to describe post-metal's foundations.--Malconfort (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, atleast a major concern of the article has been addressed. If no sources can be found that directly describe the fusion and the article is deleted based on lack of notablility, atleast I have a properly referenced paragraph that I can add (in part) to a few related pages (like post-hardcore for example). --  ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫    ...    (Talk)    17:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Notability comments The article written by a staff member of The New Review specifically addresses the trend. The reference by Sumerian Records mentions the trend itself, but with a nonspecific nature. The other references acknowledge the trend by applying it to specific bands or musicians. I'm also looking for additional information.   ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫    ...    (Talk)    17:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * REDIRECT to Hardcore punk. I've added the most reliably referenced portions of this article to the section "influence on other genres" and subsection "electronic music" on Hardcore punk. You're right that the fusion isn't notable enough for its own page. Reliable references regarding the fusion do exist though, as you can see at the link above. Considering that other Wikipedia pages may contain links to Electronically influenced hardcore, it would be more appropriate to blank the page and redirect it (and maybe prevent edits) than to delete the link entirely. Although the fusion has become popular, popular enough to form a well referenced paragraph, it is not notable enough for its own article. A redirect here would TRULY be most appropriate.


 * "Electronically influenced hardcore" is an implausible search term and would not make a suitable redirect. A Google search turns up 37 hits out of the entire internet, and the majority of them are Wikipedia articles or mirrors of Wikipedia articles. It's not a common enough of a phrase that people would be looking for it. This "trend" is also supposedly a mix of various styles, and could theoretically redirect to a number of different articles. Why should this redirect to hardcore punk and not metalcore? or electronic rock? or dubstep? or nintendocore? Also, since this information was deemed original research and an improper synthesis of sources, this probably doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I already mentioned that the term "electronically influenced hardcore" is not essential to the trend at all. You won't find that term anywhere because its a term I invented to describe the fusion. The trend has no "official term." And it makes PERFECT sense to redirect the article to a Hardcore punk. This article was ALL ABOUT electronic influence on hardcore punk subgenres. The information found at Hardcore punk is in no way OR, and besides this isn't the place to discuss whether or not content on a separate article is appropriate and should stay, this is the place to discuss whether or not THIS ARTICLE should redirect to anywhere on Wikipedia. See Talk:Hardcore punk for that. Reliable information on the topic can be found at Hardcore punk. It would make no sense to delete the article instead of simply removing all content and redirecting there. What would be the advantage of "red links" across Wikipedia where a link to this page exists. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to redirect the link to a page that contains useful information? --  ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫    ...    (Talk)    02:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You make it seem as if "red links across Wikipedia" would be highly damaging. I count only nine article links to electronically influenced hardcore. That's hardly damaging at all, especially when you consider "across Wikipedia" means 3.5 million articles. They could easily be updated by hand, or I think there's even a bot for this specific task. In this case, creating red links is really a non-issue. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "You won't find that term anywhere because its a term I invented to describe the fusion." That's for blasphemy!--Malconfort (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, Fezmar. And I actually just went through and reformatted those nine links in anticipation of delete. ps: Malconfort, I don't get how the link to Incantation (band) is relevant at all (but your point is well taken). --  ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫    ...    (Talk)    23:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relax, take it easy and smoke weed because it's just a pun [or "a term I invented to describe the fusion"]. --Malconfort (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol... :P


 * Close AfD - this appears already to have been merged. Did I miss something? Bearian (talk) 20:22, 3 May 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.