Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Neo-trance

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is for a subgenre of music that does not exist. I wonder if the creator and the people who maintain the article mean, Progressive Trance. At best the existence of this article reflects poorly on the creator of the article; at worst it reflects poorly on electronic music as a whole, and makes it look like a style of music not to be taken seriously because of the ambiguous nature of supposed genres such as this one. An aside, this article can't even support any valid references. If you google neo-trance under news, you'll only find one article written in Italian (that is if you search under any time and not archives). Why this article has been allowed to exist for so long, and even be allowed to be added to footers... you'd have to ask the people involved. I wholly stand by my decision to nominate this article for deletion.  Lighthead  þ 05:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 26.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  05:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There are a few easily found sources online, which may be found by hitting the blue links above. However, there's not a lot out there.  We have, in the past, deleted most new genres of music; see OUTCOMES for examples. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bearian, most of the articles that you find at google news (under the archives function), are old news articles that ascribe certain artists as neo-trance without any reason for doing so. That's not even enough to support this article with one adequate reference.  Lighthead  þ 18:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looking at the online sources does not seem to produce much that supports the idea of notability (mostly just the term). This may be a significant genre in the future, but there is not evidence of it yet.--  SabreBD  (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was trying to say in my comment to Bearian. I hadn't fully absorbed your statement.  Lighthead  þ 00:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't get my head around what sound this article is supposed to be about, the mish mash of tech house / downtempo / minimal artists at the bottom is incoherent. Perhaps "neo-trance" is used to describe something, but from this (and the lack of decent sources) it's not really clear what. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   15:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think at best it's a subtle sound that only a few privileged people can identify. That's about all I can say. Maybe in some years it could develop into a coherent sound. However, Wikipedia is not in the business of prediction. To Filelakeshoe.  Lighthead  þ 00:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As to your comment about the artists mentioned at the end of the article, none of them even come close to a trance sound in my personal opinion. Much less an ambiguous pseudo-genre. Letters from an obsessive electronic music enthusiast.  Lighthead  þ 03:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the references in Google Books to neo-trance are more descriptive of a style and not necessarily to a separate sub-genre of music. Look carefully at Spin magazine entry, Apr. 2002 above under Books. It's towards the end of the article.  Lighthead  þ 01:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An Aside I guess everybody's off for the weekend doing their weekend thing. It's okay. I can wait. I'm patient. Hahaha. To those in the arbitration process: if you view this as anything besides just a joke, you need to get off Wikipedia. It bears repeating: it's just a joke. Sheesh...  Lighthead  þ 04:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you can tell I don't do this kind of thing too much. Lighthead...KILLS!! 22:46, 1 August 2012 (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.