Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tech Beat


 * 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Tech Beat

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable musical genre, with one practitioner. References are not reliable (and several are wikipedia links). Article is full of OR Gaijin42 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There are many other practitioners of Tech Beat - entry coming very soon when the current list is collated Editman20 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2012 (GMT)

Trying my best to comply but having much trouble understanding all Editman20 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2012 (GMT)
 * I have posted to your talk page to discuss questions you may have. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: "Continuing to remove maintenance templates" - Was completely unintentional and did not know that I had done this.

RE: few participants - Whilst I accept that there are currently few patricipants, Tech Beat was created by the same group of people that created Drum and Bass (roots era of 1989 - 1991 when known as 'Progressive Hardcore') and Raggamuffin Hip Hop (2001). Most are now internationallly known and as with these previous forms, there were only a handful to begin with until it became promoted by 3rd parties as well as by the artists themselves.

One of the reasons that it has been so difficult for others to put together a definitive history of Drum and Bass (for example) is because those involved consciously at the start remained underground and didn't give a title to the new form and so didn't contribute. The result is one mess of a page that is in need of much attention and I feel that this is because it has been left to others outside of the industry to put it all together years later.

To avoid a potential future repetition of all of this with Tech Beat, I'm just trying to do what I feel should have been done first time around (with the relevant 3rd parties at the time) but for Tech Beat - the latest genre from these guys.

Their publishers, record co's and global distributors are supporting the genre and are also talking with many of the shippers to prepare them to follow suit in the near future as more releases come out, supported by live performances at top venues around the world starting early this year (2012).

In light of all of this, it would seem that this form is destined to take-off this year and so would it not be easier all-around, to let the page build naturally over the next 6 months, with a view to deleting it if this doesn't happen?

New genres do not tend to just pop up overnight globally from nowhere. In 25 years of working in the industry as a sound engineer I have always found that it is just small pockets of people working together who initially evolve genres into a new form.

Also, surely Wikipedia requires content submitted from those directly involved, and who therefore know the history intimately, rather than various commentators who may of had little direct involvement. (More artists will me added to the list very soon) Editman20 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Editman20Editman20 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If fact, wikipedia prefers those directly involved NOT to be editing related pages. Please see WP:COI and WP:OR.This is why we also required WP:RS and WP:V - so that those who do not have intimate knowledge can confirm what the article says (which is one of the main failings of this article) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that [leaving aside the issue of content quality], I do understand and accept the argument. On this basis, more than happy to let you guys decide what to do [even though there does seem to be only one objector]. Was just trying to prevent potential future problems re: content accuracy. Thanks for trying to sort it with me anyway. Editman20 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Editman20Editman20 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - We almost always have deleted recently-created or newly-named musical genres; see for example, over the years these precedents: Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk (Sept. 2007), Articles for deletion/Christian post-hardcore (July 2009), Articles for deletion/Chelpedo punk and Articles for deletion/Christian fantasy metal and Articles for deletion/Slow grass (all Mar. 2010), Articles for deletion/Trance metal (June 2010), and Articles for deletion/Alternative bubblegum pop (Nov. 2010).  We have "kept" such new genres only when there is some evidence that it is catching on with other musicians; see Articles for deletion/Alternative metal (2nd nomination) (July 2010).  The sad thing is, that even in a postmodern world, new music genres rarely catch on. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I accept your point, thanks for explaining.Editman20 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)editman20Editman20 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 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.