Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hard dance


 * 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 Hardstyle.  MBisanz  talk 01:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hard dance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I recently nominated this page for deletion under WP:PROD. My prod was contested by without the issue (lack of sources) being fixed, which is why I'm nominating it for deletion again under AfD. The reasons below are pretty much a verbatim quote of myself on the talk page explaining all the qualms I had:
 * 1) Three of the four external links violate WP:ELNO #5 because they link to sites that sell products.
 * 2) The one "reference" on the page violates WP:CIRCULAR because it links to a mirror of this article as it appeared in October 2010. Check the Duplication Detector report.
 * 3) I did a good faith search myself on both Google web search and Google Books but I only found a bunch of music sites to download/listen/purchase hard dance music, some other websites about parties, and a few social networking pages. I also found the official website of the hard dance awards which I assumed would be a great source but even this website doesn't have a definition of what hard dance is and the "press" webpage only has a link to their Facebook.
 * 4) This article fails WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY ''"Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
 * 5) If a genre as small as filk music has acceptable sources, there's absolutely no reason why it should be okay for hard dance to have no sources. //Gbern3 (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Gbern3 - the points you note are a good argument that the cruft information should be stripped away to make the article a stub again. While it badly needs a seasoned researcher to compile the proper references, it can easily be shown that term has been and is still widely used in various quarters, much more so than other terms that have survived a nomination for deletion. --MilkMiruku (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep and replace with a single sentence, there is clearly sourcing out there (a google book search reveals a book titled "Ibiza: The History of Hard Dance"). '''Redirect to... somewhere. Maybe hardstyle.''' Let's not make the electro house mistake again, there's no need to delete the page history (no copyvio or BLP violations or anything). - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  16:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There clearly are not sources out there. For the record "Ibiza: The History of Hard Dance" is not a book, It's a CD. Furthermore, according to World Cat this "book" has no ISBN and is identified as being on three discs and published by Warner—as in Warner Bros. Records or Warner Music Group. So now we're back to where we started: no sources. Only a CD you can purchase. Like I said before, if a genre as small as filk music has acceptable sources, there's absolutely no reason why it should be okay for hard dance to have no sources. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be even more unacceptable for "hard dance" to be a redlink, since it's clearly used universally as a label by music websites, gets 13 million google hits, and even some google books hits. If this must be deleted, I suggest a redirect is created to hardcore techno, hardstyle, hard house or some other similar genre article, none of which are really ideal targets... - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  22:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you looked through the results on Google web search? Forums, social networking websites, blogs, websites to download/purchase music, websites to listen to music (i.e. soundcloud), nightclub websites, event postings, etc. is what you get. From these hits, it seems to me that hard dance is very underground and only covered by people within the scene rather than by third-party independent news resources. So saying that Google comes up with 13 million hits without providing a good source from within those hits doesn't help your case for keeping this article. From WP:GOOGLE "A search engine test cannot help you avoid the work of interpreting your results and deciding what they really show. Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything" (Note: I didn't make that section bold to be mean. It actually appears this way in the original quote). From WP:NOTE "...if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." I don't think hard dance should have its own article, but I can compromise on a redirect because I don't think hard dance is a made-up/hoax genre. //Gbern3 (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * About the Google Books search results:
 * From DJing for Dummies: "So if you've been brought into a club that used to play hard dance music and is now trying to move away from that, you may find that the club asks you to throw in some R & B through the first part of the set, then some really commercial, popular dance music in the main part of the set." How does this help the article? The paragraph this sentence appears in—actually the entire book—is about DJing. It's not about hard dance. This is the only mention of "hard dance" in the entire book and this mention is rather trivial. Furthermore, from this sentence readers still wouldn't know what hard dance is, why it's important, or where it came from.
 * From The Experience Economy: A New Perspective: "With its programming of hard dance music, Q-Dance attracts primarily a younger group of visitors (17-26 years old)." Again, only one mention of hard dance in the entire book and this mention isn't about hard dance. It's about the event Q-dance. The word "Q-dance" is not in the hard dance article and the word "hard dance" is not in the Q-dance article. So why should we have a separate article on hard dance, if the word "hard dance" is not even in an article about an event that is supposed to play hard dance music?
 * From Capoeira: The Jogo de Angola from Luanda to Cyberspace, Volume Two: "Yes, when I'm picking my music for my forms it's got to have that something in it that kinda, like, makes me think, right, I'm going to bust some moves. What do you play? It's like hard dance music or trance, it's along those lines in the dance field..." Again, one trivial mention in the entire book—which is about capoeira, not hard dance. The page before provides some context for this quote. While being interviewed, a capoeirista states that he practices freestyle kickboxing. In the quote, he's talking about how he likes to play hard dance music while practicing his kickboxing moves. Okay, so this random capoeirista likes to practice to hard dance music. How is this going to help the article? To prove that hard dance music exist? We already know that from going to Google which returned a bunch of websites to download/listen/purchase music. What we still don't know is where hard dance came from, how it developed, or why it's important.
 * The fourth result appears to be out of a magazine called Horizon with the quote "Zig-Zag, a Kwekwe-based outfit, have made the best of their unique combination of reggae and traditional sounds to come up with what they call chigiyo, hard dance music which doesn't compromise the integrity of the Zimbabwe roots touch" It's hard to say if it's helpful or not because a full preview isn't available and Google results for chigiyo's relation to hard dance literally yield nothing. When searching for "chigiyo zimbabwe", on the first page of results I found two good sources... for chigiyo that is. An article from NewsDay about the music genre and a book that discusses chigiyo as a dance style. So from this Horizon article, I've discovered that it's easier to find reliable sources about chigiyo, a genre of music from Zimbabwe, than it is for hard dance. Now I definitely don't think hard dance should have its own article.
 * The last result on Google Books looks like it's probably another CD masquerading as a book, but I didn't go to WorldCat this time to check. My point is these results aren't helping your case. Simply providing a link to a list of hits isn't helpful. You have to actually check them to see if their viable. By-the-way, sorry to everybody about the really long-winded responses. I know these big comments are annoying but I just felt I had to say all this in order to explain my position. //Gbern3 (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm very aware google hits don't demonstrate notability, but my post above is still a valid argument for "hard dance" not to be a redlink. Yes, I think you might possibly be right that something used as a category by every online electronic music store isn't a "hoax/made up genre", and my argument is that this likely a search term shouldn't lead to nowhere. I know you won't trust my OR/inside knowledge, but I'll tell you anyway, hard dance is an umbrella term used, roughly, to encompass all the genres listed in Template:hard dance-footer (and you might wanna think about what to do with that if this article is going to be deleted). It probably wasn't used much until last decade, when hardstyle became more popular, exactly so that music websites could lump all these styles together in one category. If a source can't be found to verify at least this, then redirect it to hardstyle, please. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  14:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I went back and checked on that last result in Google Books. After posting my last comment, I decided it didn't make sense for me to check all the results except the last one. Turns out Electronic Musician is not a CD. It's a magazine that covers music technology. It's geared toward readers who are EDM producers or engineers. The result from Google Books was likely due to this article on the magazine's website. Here's the full quote: "What you're getting with the EA-1 is a well-tuned performance machine. Therefore, long-term satisfaction with the unit is most likely for die-hard dance-music producers. Electronic musicians in need of more in-depth synthesis should probably look elsewhere." It seems like Google got tripped up on the syntax. I couldn't find anything else related to hard dance on that website.
 * If the hard dance article ends up being deleted, the Template:hard dance-footer would qualify for WP:SPEEDY deletion under Db-templatecat. It's only transcluded on nine pages so removing the redlink from Wikipedia wouldn't take long. The EDM styles listed in hard dance-footer are already in Template:Electronic dance music-footer so those links won't get lost. The other genres listed can be merged into Electronic dance music-footer within their own hard sub-group. It would be easy to add them. //Gbern3 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and add redirect to Hardstyle Semitransgenic  talk. 12:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources don't seem to exist. Term is vague enough that whatever meaning is agreed upon may not remain persistently settled (cf. "heavy music" or "hardcore", different meanings for each generation), so I'm not crazy about having a redirect either. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:02, 5 February 2013 (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.