Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurepop


 * 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. notability is demontsrated by sources not assertion Spartaz Humbug! 09:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Futurepop

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a Neologism. I came across this via a genre troll who keeps adding it to articles on his favorite electronic acts. Searching the article, Google books, & Google news, the only reliable sources I can find are these. They all use the term only in passing, and only in the context of the band VNV Nation. The best of the three describes it simply as a term the band came up with to describe their own music, while another only mentions it as a "nebulous tag". Simply put, there are not enough reliable sources available to verify this genre's actual existence or show its notability, much less to write an encyclopedia article about it. It would be akin to having an article on "stroll" simply because that's the term Big D and the Kids Table are using to describe the sound of their latest album. IllaZilla (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following page because it is completely dependent on the main article's existence:


 * comment not clear how real this genre is, but it's pretty clear that this listing is correct, in that the term was coined by VNV Nation to describe their own music. The only references I can find to this label being used to describe other bands is on last.fm, which is all user-contributed. -Miskaton (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. This area of genres is a mess. "Futurepop" is in moderately widespread use to refer to bands other than VNV Nation (e.g.,  ). It's nonetheless a somewhat minor variant of other genres, so maybe should be redirected somewhere. The big problem for Wikipedia is that the genre it's considered a variant of in the music press / fan base, EBM, is on Wikipedia defined in a more purist sense to include only the 1980s music style and conservative outgrowths thereof, excluding what most of the contemporary goth/industrial press labels "EBM". So the EBM article would have to be fixed first to be a viable merge target, which would no doubt result in opposition from purists (I made an attempt years ago, but the "Developments" section was removed by genre purists). This article being separate was actually part of a circa-2005 compromise with EBM purists to split off the information elsewhere, since they didn't want it in their article. --Delirium (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Delerium: Hmm, I didn't know the background on that. Considering that there's only 1 sourced statement in the whole article, it should be easy to merge that statement & reference to either electronic body music or electronic music in a section about later developments or subgenres. From what you're describing about the activity of the "purists" at the EBM article, some discussion about OWN and NPOV at those articles' talk pages may be in order. I think larger community dialogue might help ease some of the tensions (I've had a similar experience at emo with purists & POV-pushers, and in the end I think things came to positive results thanks to wider community involvement). --IllaZilla (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think some outside editing by neutral observers would be helpful. The situation is roughly analogous to the "emo" one you mention, basically a prescriptivist/descriptivist split over whether latter-day outgrowths of the original genre should be "allowed" to use the name. --Delirium (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge Merge with electronic body music (Disclosure: I consider futurepop to be my favorite genre of music.) Digitally Imported, a popular streaming radio site for electronic dance music, has a "Future Synthpop" channel  dedicated to futurepop and synthpop — and considering the number of tracks played on that station, it's not as if the genre so ambiguous as to defy classification.  Merging it with EBM is problematic not only due to purists on the EBM side, but because the genre also has much in common with synthpop; if we ignore the historical development of the genre (which does tie into EBM) and look only at the traits, you could easily describe it as a variant of synthpop.  I'm not opposed to a merge (with a redirect left in place), but I can't come up with a compelling reason to merge it with one over the other; if it's to be merged with EBM, that article absolutely needs a cleanup to bring it more in line with a broader definition of that term. - Korpios (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed my vote to Merge; trying to be objective, I can see that this is a genre that's minor enough as to bring the need for a full article into question. I still hold that there's a distinctive style here, and there are dozens of bands who largely fall into it represented on significant independent labels (e.g., Metropolis Records) — so I wouldn't want to see all mention of it completely lost.  I'm willing to try to help edit the EBM article to add such a section of "offshoots" or whatnot, but I might need some support on the Talk page in dealing with outraged purists.  ^_^  - Korpios (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the German version of this article has quite a bit more than the English version; maybe that content should be incorporated? - Korpios (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem I see there is that the German version only has 1 reference as well, and it's for a quote that says (from what I can make out of the garbled translation) that there's barely any difference between "futurepop" and "dance techno", and lumps it in with something called the "black scene". None of the other content is referenced at all, so there's really nothing to incorporate into the English version. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured it was garbled enough that using the content would require the assistance of a native speaker, but the lack of references is unfortunate, rendering it moot. Ah well. - Korpios (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting a bit tangential, but "black scene" is what we briefly describe at dark culture, basically a European umbrella term for the loosely grouped music subcultures that the English music press more often groups under "goth/industrial", though somewhat broader. --Delirium (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * delete Genre made up by a band with no significant use in outside media. In fact the only source here is from some unnotable magazine.Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Futurepop is a distinct style within the wide modern umbrella usage of the term 'EBM'. Considering how Wikipedia deals with other music subgenre pages, i.e., those of rock, metal, drum and bass, trance, etc, I think this article should stay. Yes, the article needs references, but there are plenty of notable sources constructive editors could use; side-line, Release Magazine , the German Zillo magazine . --MilkMiruku (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: AfD has been reopened following a request. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I objected to the AfD being closed (and the article being deleted just yet) since I don't think we really have consensus here (3 to 2), and I'd hate to lose potentially useful content on the current page and its history. Does anyone object to my proposal (above) to merge the content of the article into electronic body music as a new section there, and then having the futurepop article replaced with a redirect to electronic body music?  I think this would address notability concerns while preserving a place for information on this style of music.  The immediate first step would be to add a merger template to futurepop, and add a section to Talk:electronic body music noting the intention to create such a section.  Thoughts? - Korpios (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I still favor a deletion. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't a merge into another article address your concerns? The article as it stands would still be gone, replaced with a redirect. - Korpios (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What a Nonsensepedia. Futurepop is an established style and definitely not a neologism. It's a mixture between electropop and techno trance music. --Feu Follet (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then surely you can provide reliable sources in order to bring the article in compliance with our verifiability policy and show the style's notability. If not, your assertion seems based entirely on your opinion, which is irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because there are few reliable sources that explicitly mention futurepop doesn't mean that it is his opinion. It is definitely a term that sees widespread use within the fans of the "genre". Since this is Wikipedia, we definitely need reliable sources to back this up, but it's definitely more than just anybody's opinion that this style of music is, indeed, distinct from trance or EBM and is an established sound of its own. Now, I don't necessarily support the deletion of this article, but I don't oppose it being merged with EBM and mentioned there in its own section. It's better than not having information on these bands available at all which is what occurred during the temporary deletion of this article, and it is generally agreed that futurepop is an offshoot of EBM, although with elements of trance and synthpop. bob rulz (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2009 (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.