Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South African psytrance


 * 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. no sources have been found so the deletion arguments are unrefuted Spartaz Humbug! 02:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

South African psytrance

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No reliable third party sources that indicate the notability of this genre Drasticuo (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep With three record labels dedicated to this genre, I would give this article the benefit of the doubt pending better references. __meco (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment and Question In my opinion the three labels mentioned are dedicated to psytrance in general. Apart from that, do you have reliable, 3rd party, independent sources that prove that these "three record labels are dedicated to "this genre""? Drasticuo (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I hadn't looked into it that deeply. I'm basically sad to see this article being deleted, but I realize rules are rules, so I have canceled my vote. I'll tag it for rescue though. Maybe that'll help. __meco (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete would be my first option. In the list of artists, there is only one artist that has a wikipedia article, and that one is a stub. Although it contains an external links section, there are no references. I just removed a portion of unencyclopedic info from there. If there are to be sources added, I would be open to reconsideration, but this is my vote for now. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  —meco (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —meco (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  —meco (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks references that may establish notability. Spatulli (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Although the article its self needs a lot of work, including better referencing, organisation and copy editing; I am of the opinion that this is both a relevant and interesting topic. The genre is large enough and distinct enough to justify a wiki article of its own.  However it will need someone with a much better understanding of the subject then my self to sort this out. Alternatively this article could be merged into the Dark psytrance as a sub category of that genre.--Discott (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Question How did you conclude that this genre exists, and that it is "large enough and distinct enough to justify a wiki article of its own" ? Given the assumption that you live in South Africa (from your userpage), did you ever hear about it? I'm of the opinion that it has no references, and thus cannot possibly be called an existing "genre" or "genera" unless there are some sources that prove this. Spatulli (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * comment I added a merge tag to Dark psytrance as you suggested. Spatulli (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge + Answer & comment I have indeed heard of it before as a distinct genre however I have been in China for most of the past three years and only just got back and I don't think I can claim to be enough of an expert on this subject to mount a proper defense of it as a unique genre. I think that the merger with Dark psytrance is the best outcome.--Discott (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Regretfully, I'd say that a merge is a bad idea, because the article as it stands now completely lacks references and is thus unverifiable. So if aside from the notability issues it also completely unverified, I heavily doubt that a merger would be helpful. Spatulli (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Two music news sites have been easily found through a brief Google news search. They mention this is a legitimate genre.   D r e a m Focus  03:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What?! haha. Dream Focus, You are totally wrong. This source quotes Wikipedia (!), most specifically the Rinkadink article. The other "source",, as can be inferred from your "brief Google news search", i.e. here doesn't even join the two strings of "South african" and "psytrance" together. Just, check yourself before you're !voting here. Thanks a Lot in advance, 03:28, 28 September 2010 (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.