Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future 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 no consensus. to delete. The question of merging back into Deep house has not been decided here, and AFD is not the venue for that anyway. That is a matter for editorial judgement and can be resolved by normal discussion and editing. SpinningSpark 18:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Future house

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After a year since it was split from Deep house the sourcing remains woeful and lacks any substance. It fails the criteria of WP:MUSIC and redirected to its original position where it is better placed as a sub-genre. Karst (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This doesn't exist.  Its not a genre.  Its a collection of sounds a very small group of people have identified that they like. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Little actual problem with sourcing or substance, though it admittedly could do with a bit more of the latter. The "it's not a genre" argument has already been deconstructed previously so shall not retread old ground here. --Half past  formerly SUFCboy   01:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I presume to refer to this discussion. Let's talk sources then. The Tchami interview is tagged with the term, but when asked, the subjects answers 'I don't know what Future House is. It's whatever you create that doesn't exist before you created it. Didn't mean to confuse anybody, but a lot of people asked me how to do future house.' In the second interview on Vice he notes 'Future house was not meant to be that narrowly oriented of an idea, in my mind, future house was meant to be 'any kind of house music that hasn’t been invented yet, so I never considered it as a genre.' That is extremely vague and puts it into the bracket of Neologisms I notice that it is mentioned on his own article, but the factual accuracy of that is disputed and the future house aspect unreferenced. I need to be rewritten. At least this interview with Laidback Luke provides a definition that describes future house as 'deep house garage mixed down in an EDM vibe'. That is vague and confirms to me that it is a subgenre of deep house and that is where it belongs. I noticed that his wikipedia article does not mention future house at all. The edmtunes.com article is quite dismissive of the term describing it as 'this form of future house can be more narrowly identified as “big-room deep house,” as it draws from elements of traditional house and blends them with a modern, EDM-friendly, structure. It’s not necessarily a sound made from thin air. An arguable reason as to why Tchami’s sound is so popular is because it’s an excellent modern take on an old sound'. Which proves the point that term is attached to one person specifically and cannot be considered a genre in itself. There simply is not the sourcing for it. And that Vicetone article reads like a regurgitated press-release. At least when looking at the deep house article there are citations such as the Simon Reynolds book. A search turns up very little in the way of sourcing. Redirecting it would retain much of the content and provide the opportunity to expand it should more reliable sources appear. Karst (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article definitely could use some work/clean-up, but the "fact" of future house has been reinforced by its addition as a distinct genre by Beatport, the relevance of which was underscored by an article in Billboard describing it as a "newer genre" and lamenting its having been "lumped into...deep house." Heidigirl.payne (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Genre tags on Beatport does not indicate notability, reliable sources do. Karst (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. We almost always delete "new genre of music" articles. see WP:MUSICOUTCOMES for older examples. For newer examples, see Articles_for_deletion/Hauntology_(musical_genre), Articles_for_deletion/Battle_metal_(genre), Articles_for_deletion/Ratchet_(music_genre), Articles_for_deletion/Rain_dance_(music_genre), Articles_for_deletion/Alternative_bubblegum_pop, and Articles_for_deletion/Christian_fantasy_metal, all in the past six years. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not sure how this discussion thing works, but I'll give it a try. So, how do genres work ? If you look for some specific sound, you put that into search engine and see what comes out - if the name corresponds to the sound you are after - genre definition works. On other hand should we reinforce this link or break it ? As I understand it, one goes against W policy on genres, another gives an insight on what is going on. Now, Tchami called it future house, and I think it works - when someone asks for Tchami like sound and looks for deep house, confusion arises, when someone points to future house - everything goes in the right direction. By keeping this genre separate from deep house, maybe we can finally solve the confusion and by reinforcing the difference fans will add and fix required references. I'm tired of ppl coming into discussion meaning one thing and saying another. I'm not that well versed in how W articles should be created, but I try my best to help here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.216.103.75 (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - I think it should be merged back into the "deep house" article as this new genre will definitely be prominent in the future, say in two years time. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2016 (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.