Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthwave


 * 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. as several passing mentions are not enough to demonstrate independent notability, so the nominator's original concerns were not overcome. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  14:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Synthwave

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted because this is not a genre with enough exposure and is pretty much dedicated to strictly a fan base with no strong Third Party sources. As shown on the talk page by a user who objected to the original idea for deletion. Even talk page reasoning for keeping the page fails WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. There is not a strong enough definition of the genre from any serious academic or even popular culture source nor is there any third-party sources describing their sound in this way. Just because people are using the term, doesn't mean we can hold onto it until we get some actual back up from real sources. Not just bands promoting themselves, internet message board conversation about sub-sub-sub genres and so forth. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 31.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 02:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I deleted this as an expired PROD, and it was then restored after an objection - I pointed out at the time that it is lacking in good in-line reliable secondary sources (and still is).  Ron h jones  (Talk) 19:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to new wave music. Some sources that are not cited in the article indicate that this genre actually existed; however, there is too little information to actually form a notable article. It can be passed on with a few sentences on the new wave article in my opinion. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't re-direct, those articles label several things as synthwave but don't offer up a definition nor do they state it's relationship to new wave. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I've found this article, which I believe offers a definition. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added that, but it sort of ignores anything else mentioned in the article. Is that one source make it worth an article on it's own? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely revamped the article, adding extremely credible sources and such. This definitely suffices based on wikipedia's guidelines. There should be no issues anymore. Kaleb Alfadda (Kaleb Alfadda|talk) 14:06, 18th June 2014 {MST USA} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.47.100 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. It clearly fails WP:NOTE, one very limited reference is not sufficient.--  SabreBD  (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then here is some more articles about Synthwave. How is none of this valid?


 * http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Synthwave/
 * www.letoilemagazine.com%2F2014%2F04%2F09%2Fwe-will-rock-you-welcome-to-the-future-this-is-synthwave%2F&h=wAQHjdqM4
 * http://www.latimes.com/wtxx-midge-ure-and-ultravox-arrive-at-the-stafford-palace-theater-on-january-11th-20130108-story.html
 * http://pitchfork.com/news/42333-new-release-com-truise-galactic-melt/
 * http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/may/29/retromania-simon-reynolds-review

These include the guardian, pitchfork, rateyourmusic, la times.

Is that good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.47.100 (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Synthwave, no matter how relatively unknown to mainstream audiences, is no less legitimate than any other. This applies to all music genres, for that matter. While I could understand it being deemed "questionable" if it was difficult to find any trace of the genre, this is obviously not the case. A simple search conducted on SoundCloud, a website second in popularity only to Youtube when it comes to music hosting, produces more results for the term "Synthwave" than it can number individually. That's over 500+ tracks uploaded under the Synthwave banner. Are you telling me these musicians and producers aren't qualified to label their own music? Hundreds of artists under the banner, and they're ALL wrong?

The term "Synthwave" on soundcloud lists 222 artists. That's 222 artists on the Soundcloud platform alone. So to say that the genre is "questionable" is to say that the existence and credentials of each of the artists who produced under this genre are also questionable. What credentials do YOU have to question the collective product of hundreds of musicians songs? What credentials do you have to tell thousands of fans (over 2000 in the Synthetix Music Facebook group) they are simply wrong?

I'd put far more trust in a musician defining the genre they are dabbling in than a Wikipedia editor with no perceivable background in music. Actual music production and performance experience trumps your 10,000 hours of article editing.

Now if we assume each song within the Soundcloud search results is an average of three minutes long (which is a conservative estimate), and we stick to only the initial 500 tracks on SoundCloud, then we're talking about 1,500 minutes of music that you say doesn't exist. This is an insult to any artist who defies mainstream expectations and tired artistic pigeon-holing.

I would also like to point out that the artist Power Glove is a synthwave duo. They created the SYNTHWAVE soundtrack to the critically acclaimed Far Cry 3 DLC "Blood Dragon." According to the Blood Dragon Wikipedia entry: "At gamescom 2013, it was revealed that the game had sold over 1 million copies, and Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot stated that physical copies of the game may be available at some point.[29] The game is the fastest selling downloadable title in Ubisoft history.[30]" This means that the genre of Synthwave has reached over 1 million people. Did those 1 million gamers hear imaginary music since the synthwave genre is supposedly questionable, and non-existant? Many fans of the game and music genre, myself included, became interested in the game after hearing samples of the soundtrack.
 * 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.