Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Trance


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Future Trance

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Has been unsourced for some time, article subject is ambiguous neither seems notable neon white talk 12:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge into Trance music. Lose the list, though. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge what though? i can't find a source for the opening claim. --neon white talk 13:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the compilation; lose the music genre. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. (BURN IT WITH FIRE)  LOL at the suggestion to merge!  There are no sources here, there is nothing to merge.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 07:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Very useless dictionary definition. There's an article to be written on this topic by somebody eventually, but this vapid snippet helps nobody. Carrite (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - one line. no sources. not notable.Cookiehead (talk) 18:23, 3 August 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.