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 Keep waggers (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folktronica[edit]

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

Another neologism. This one means a form dance music that fuses together any number of other genres of music. Not a genre, a neologism that was made up as an umbrella term. No actually style or development history. Ridernyc (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs cleaning up and the list of bands needs to be pruned and sourced, but as far as I'm concerned it's a valid genre. I'm not sure what you'd call bands like Tunng otherwise. Jonchapple (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-established musical style. The article does need improvements. That is why we have the ((refimprove)) and ((fact)) templates. gidonb (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will then have no problem providing us with references that clearly describes it's characteristics, and development history. Ridernyc (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only timewise. Also, even where I referenced, you did not withdraw your a priori unnecessary AfD. gidonb (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in other words sourcing this is a problem. Ridernyc (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs better referencing. There is no connection, however, between what you wrote in this AfD and Folktronica. gidonb (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then provide us with the referencing, that describe it's characteristics and development history. Without that we have nothing more then a neologism. Ridernyc (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally subjective and undefinable and unsourced term for another music sub genre. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forked the article to Wikinfo. They allow SPOV and OR, so in time either make this article good enough to justify maintaining or, if deleted, to reintroduce. Just saying.70.54.181.70 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With a few more sources, this could be a more formidable article. It doesn't hurt that a sweeping majority of the listed bands are blue-linked. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 06:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And after checking about 10 of them not a single mentions folktronica in their respective articles. Also found one that links to a book and not a musician. Ridernyc (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding some sources at the moment. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, I've added a sample of the many articles in the music press that discuss this genre. The subject easily meets the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per solid work by Paul Erik finding sourcing for the term. I would urge anybody who previously voted delete to take a look at the new sourcing and evaluate whether or not you still are in favor of deletion. I don't think it's a blindingly obvious keep but there -is- coverage of the term in reliable sources, and some of it is non-trivial. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:17, 9 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.