Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurepop (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy delete (CSD G4)  by Tone and salt. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 21:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Futurepop
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreation of deleted article, possibly by the same genretroll. Nothing has magically changed since the last AfD - futurepop is still not a genre worth an article. Delete, and in this case I think salt. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm really bored of your stupid crap. Futurepop is an established genre. But maybe the english Wikipedia is full of idiots? Hey, let's delete punk and new wave...and later neoclassicism. --Feu Follet (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never been involved with this before - I'm actually a big fan of Assemblage 23 and the like. Thanks for coming out with such a reasonable argument though, that'll really sway people over to your side. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not my problem, asshole. You called me a genretroll. I'm not a fan of Assemblage 23 and in fact I HATE FUTUREPOP, but this fucking genre is definitely existent! There're interwikis, there're 459,000 google hits, and there're different genre compilations. Eat or die. --Feu Follet (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly a genretroll - this was previously recreated by single purpose accounts. Ironholds (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom and the info on the first nomination. Struggles badly against WP:N and WP:V. Rafablu88  18:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedily delete (possibly with a dash of salt) under CSD #G4: recreation of deleted material. This is virtually identical to the deleted article, with no substantial changes or additional secondary sources to show notability. In short, it addresses none of the reasons the article was deleted in the previous AfD. Should've been marked for speedy rather than AfD'd a second time. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The content is not the same. --Feu Follet (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It may not be word-for-word verbatim, but there are no substantial differences between this version and the deleted version. Most importantly, there are no additional secondary sources to verify futurepop's use as anything but a neologism nor to illustrate its notability. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy G4 as recreation of previously deleted material with no substantial changes. I'd also recommend salting. talking  birds  18:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a description, there're sources. I can't see any problem. --Feu Follet (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Four sources, two of which confirm some random record labels think futurepop exists, one of which isn't even about futurepop and one of which is in german. Read WP:N - you need multiple independent, reliable sources which cover the subject in some detail. Ironholds (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See the previous AfD that closed just yesterday. There are very few reliable sources that use the term, and most use it only in passing and only in the context of VNV Nation. There are not enough sources to verify that it is a recognized genre of music, nor to show its notability. You cannot simply recreate articles because you object to their deletion. If you wish you may ask an admin to place the article in your userspace, where you can work on improving it and adding substantial sources to show notability and verify its contents. Then it can be put back in the article mainspace. Also, please remember to be civil to other editors, both in these discussions and elsewhere. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can create what i want. WP is a free community and an encyclopaedia, not a deletion station. --Feu Follet (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you can. And then we can delete it if it doesn't fulfil our policies. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because it exists doesn't mean we have to include it. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignorant people shouldn't care about foreign topics. I know these rules. But do you really think i would waste my time and create an irrelevant and deletable article? Maybe i'm a bigmouth and my English is the ugliest of the world, but i'm not stupid. --Feu Follet (talk) 20:20, 16 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.