Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendocore (5th 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Seems to be a neologism. Someone else tried to list this for afd but only relisted a no-consensus keep from 2005. Previous afds ended in keep per the presence of two sources and the fact that one band uses the term, but I don't think that cuts it, as there haven't been any other sources to turn up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you followed WP:BEFORE and searched for sources yourself? If so, could you explain why you do you not think they meet WP:GNG? If not, could you please withdraw this nomination as underresearched AfD nominations are a waste of everyone's time. Sincerely, Skomorokh  21:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. I tried looking for sources, as I always do when nominating something, even though this was mostly a procedural nom on my part. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Exclaim! is calling Sky Eats Airplane Nintendocore, so it's now being used to describe more than just HORSE the Band. Also, Allmusic used it in reviews of albums by Arsonists Get All the Girls and Blessed by a Broken Heart, though HORSE is also mentioned in the reviews.  And here's Pitchfork Media using it!  Chubbles (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh. Those don't really go into depth, they're just dubbing it a certain way because they can. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But it sure makes it hard to call it a neologism. Furthermore, in-depth articles about the sound in relation to HORSE are in abundance. Chubbles (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If a genre is only associated with one act, then couldn't the term be merged at least? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the only way this 'genre' would be legit is if Nintendo themselves accepted and promoted it. Otherwise, it should not be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.88.166 (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep on the condition that the other usages of the term alluded to by Chubbles are included in the article with the references to back them up. Verkhovensky (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being a neologism doesn't mean that it hasn't been used anywhere before. It means that it's "a word that, devised relatively recently in a specific time period, has not been accepted into a mainstream language. By definition, neologisms are 'new', and as such are often directly attributable to a specific individual, publication, period, or event." This is a new word, and it's only been applied by a few sources to a few recent acts. There don't appear to be strong sources that discuss "Ninendocore" as a genre on its own; it's merely used in relation to a few particular bands. Now, if some of the above-mentioned sources give some in-depth coverage to Nintendocore specifically, rather than simply mentioning that a certain band is Nintendocore, then maybe there's something to go on. But the fact that this thing has languished for 3 years and so many AfDs with only these few tangential sources turning up indicates that there isn't sufficient source material available to build a decent article. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and borderline speedy keep as a possible vexatious nomination based completely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT started by the following discussion on the article's talk page (note that the below IP has just been blocked for vandalism in regards to this article and the related Horse the Band):
 * The term has received just enough coverage in reliable sources (i.e. the Los Angeles Times and the Harvard Crimson) to establish notability. Additional sources can be found in the Daily Aztec Article and the Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL). MuZemike  ( talk ) 00:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions.  MuZemike  ( talk ) 00:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This doesn't seem to be a widely used term. It's a word used by one band to describe their own style (something that we give no weight to when assigning bands to particular genres). Since then, it has been occasionally used as a way of saying "this band sounds like Horse the band". Per IllaZilla's comments above, we need reliable sources to discuss the actual genre, rather than just say "this band is nintendocore". Just look at the multitude of books etc written about punk rock, blues, rock n roll etc. When we get a good discussion such as this, then maybe the "genre" will be notable. Until then, the term is only used in passing to describe a very few bands. Widespread usage? I think not. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per NOT and Avoid neologisms. Just having a bare mention in a few sources is not enough to satisfy WP:N. Contrast with the article Grindcore -- there's substantial information about a genre's history, its definition, and so on. I've searched around, and there's no real coverage of this. It's pretty much WP:MADEUP. Randomran (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If at first you don't succeed, TRY TRY TRY TRY TRY TRY TRY TRY again. At this point it's pretty much just AFD shopping until you find the right biased admin to delete the article, and this is truly an embarassment for Wikipedia. The term has recieved coverage from reliable sources, so, keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashaNein (talk • contribs)
 * Please note that the IP responsible for starting this discussion engaged in rampant sockpuppetry with multiple votes in this AFD, per Suspected sock puppets/Notorious Duckman. This is an AFD that should've never been started for a 5th time, as it was very obvious that it would just become a troll-haven of WP:IDONTLIKEIT fanboy nonsense. Also, for any that believe the first AFD discussion is a valid reason to delete this article, please note that the Los Angeles Times coverage occured in December of 2005, while the AFD discussion ended in October of 2005. Please consider the subsquent AFDs. SashaNein (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Making myself clear here... I am in favor of keeping. At first I wasn't completely opposed to a merger, but the number of sources from reputable publications convinces me this is worth keeping. It's a new kind of music, and on the cusp, which is why it appears to be so many things to different people (and is the subject of a million AfD's)...but the coverage it's gotten so far is sufficient to establish it. Is it a fad? Probably, but fads are encyclopedic. Furthermore, the proceedings surrounding this AfD are awash in bad-faith (no mark against the actual nominator, except in that he didn't notice that the instigator was a troll.) Chubbles (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per reliable sources identified by several above editors. Amazinglarry (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The term itself was a joke coined by the members of HORSE the Band during an interview to describe the sound of their album "The Mechanical Hand". The band themselves object to the use of the term as a genre. And even if that isn't enough, no other bands have adopted the term nor has it been properly used as a genre. A look on google will demonstrate that most hits are either tags on last.fm, which don't qualify as genres or as a reliable source for that matter, Wikipedia and many usernames. There isn't a reliable source, an article or anything that describes "Nintendocore" as a real genre nor that it actually links the bands named in this article to it. Its unsourced, unverifiable and pretty much taken out of context. Also, it's beyond me why the article is still on wikipedia, because it had already been nominated for deletion and the decision was "deleted". That discussion is here: Articles for deletion/Nintendocore - Fear the duckman (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the user's second !vote. MuZemike  ( talk ) 03:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO deletes much worse, especially the fact that the term was defined by someone to describe their own band. The creator themself described it as a joke. --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!   01:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Speedy Delete per the fact that consensus has already been reached, then salt to stop it happening again. --SteelersFanUK06   ReplyOnMine!   04:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the discussion here would appear to override the consensus in the first discussion. If there haven't been any substantive edits since the first AFD, I would agree that the precedent set there should be upheld. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What consensus? All of the other AFDs closed as keep! MuZemike  ( talk ) 06:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you open up Articles for deletion/Nintendocore, consensus was reached as delete. Just sayin'. --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!   12:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But consensus reached at 2, 3, and 4 were all keep. MuZemike  ( talk ) 14:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, and it clearly did here, with three subsequent AFD discussions not going in favor of delete. Please note that the 1st AFD discussion took place in October of 2005, which was one month before its coverage in the Los Angeles Times. Citing the 1st AFD from three years ago while ignoring the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th is a completely worthless argument. SashaNein (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nonnotable neologism. Ninth time is the charm. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Until Wikipediacore is considered a legitimate genre. Diverse  Mentality  04:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get my coat - is three third nominations some kind of record? Orpheus (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done some housekeeping to get rid of the alternately-titled AfDs (third, Third, etc.), so only the actual 5 will show up now. The others were merely redirects from alternate spellings; totally unnecessary. So the previous AfDs box should actually make sense shortly once the last extraneous page is mopped up. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Discounted
The following is copied from Talk:Nintendocore:

can this article please get deleted already? seriously, only an idiot would believe "NINTENDOCORE" (FOR CRYING OUT FUCKING LOUD) is a legitimate genre, because it isn't and won't ever be. just because you stick -core at the end of a word does NOT make it a music genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.88.166 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 5 December 2008
 * Please see WP:DP and WP:PROD for explanation of how the deletion process works.--Astavats (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have added this pointless article to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.88.166 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, the nominator in this particular AfD is clearly not the IP editor from the above discussion. Therefore it's highly unlikely that this AfD is in any way vexatious or even stems from that conversation, though it appears that the person who made that comment has commented in this AfD as well under a newly registered account as Notorious Duckman. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Muzemike isn't referring to TPH; he's referring to the anonymous IP who initiated the proceedings by attempting to nominate the article for deletion and then doing it wrong. The anon IP, who is also Notorious Duckman, was, in my opinion, clearly acting in bad faith (see the edit history of HORSE the Band, after which I pursued his blocking.) That is the same person who made the above comments. Chubbles (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Account has been blocked. See WP:SSP Suspected sock puppets/Notorious Duckman. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  14:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Neologism, of the (random word) -core variety. Just because you stick -core at the end of a word does NOT make it a legitimate music genre. Notorious Duckman (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC) — Notorious Duckman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Account has been indef'ed. See WP:SSP Suspected sock puppets/Notorious Duckman. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  14:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Valid neologism. This has been used with other bands (coexisting to Horse the Band) as their defining genre, so, therefore 'Nintendocore' is a true term with a true meaning. The genre relates to other genres with a 'core' suffix such as metalcore and grindcore - they are equivalent music styles with different descriptions. To state, this is not a fictional genre; not experimental music and is a dynamic genre and is merely an eccentric genre. I find it abysmal that this has been nominated for the fifth time and the verdict of this nomination should resolve this. -- Mike  | talk  19:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to HORSE the Band. Seems to me that most all of the references to Nintendocore come from that band; it would make more sense to me to merge the information to the relevant article, in this case, the band itself. -- Nomader (Talk) 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment good plan, they invented it, they deal with it. --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!   01:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep LA times uses the term to describe a number of bands . Per WP:NEO it's okay to have a sourced Neologism. I'm good with the sourcing. Hobit (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2008 (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.