Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthpop reival


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Synthpop reival

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Besides having an incorrectly spelt "revival", there is no need for a page that deals and discusses the exact same thing as "synthpop" itself. Synthpop never left the building, so a revival doesn't make any sense. Not only is the article completely unsourced, but it also seems to contain nothing but original research. Carbrera (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete and redirect to synthpop - this is uncited OR that's not worth saving - David Gerard (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as unreferenced original research. No need for a redirect, since "Synthpop reival" is not a plausible search term. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - No sources provided and I am unable to find anything that refers to "synthpop reival" or "synthpop revival" as a separate genre. No redirect as this is an implausible search term. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:17, 26 August 2016 (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.