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 Redirect. That the only source attached to the article is about this genre's demise is telling. Anything that can properly verified can be pulled from the page history and merged. Redirecting as opposed to deleting as it is a plausible search term. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-grime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sub sub sub genres. This one is a "more radio- and commercially-friendly form of grime music". Not unique, no real history or development. Ridernyc (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Grime (music). I should note that the Grime article is already templated for a proposed merge of this article. I could easily flip to keep, though, if more reliable sources are found (we already have one). — Gwalla | Talk 22:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO. Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - I agree with Gwalla. This genre definitely can have an article, but there just isn't enough to justify it at present. It's a matter of how best to organize the information. There was no need for the AfD: This is why we had the ongoing merger procedure. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally subjective and undefinable and unsourced term for yet another music sub genre. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the one reliable source indicates that it didnt take off and is a neologism.--SabreBD (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is too much of a stub to keep this time, and there is only one source. There is way too little information to keep this article. Maybe sometime in the future it can be a formidable article, but not now. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.