Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easycore (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easycore[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Easycore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an exact copy (smaller and slightly different, so not perfectly WP:G4; still-poor references) of article that was closed delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easycore (2nd nomination) a few years ago. Appears to be same issues with WP:OR trying to synth up a WP:NEO-genre and no significant improvement. Listing here because there's been an edit war over its status as a redirect (which someone added after the deletion close, not as part of it) versus a full article. The next step is likely either a WP:SALT or a protected redirect. slakr\ talk / 10:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOTE. I also did a search for other sources in the usual places and found nothing. It seems unlikely that any reliable sources will now be forthcoming as this neologism has not taken off, so prevention of a recreation (since that since inevitable otherwise) will be necessary.--SabreBD (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. Easycore is an established genre. It may have spawned from Pop Punk, it is however very different and should have it's own page to distinguish itself. It should not redirect into the Pop Punk page, in the same sense that the Pop Punk page should not redirect into the Punk page.--Waldizzle (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. I disagree with failing WP:NOTE. There are sufficient sources to make this notable, just by checking the sources links andBing news. I do believe that there are too many subgenres of pop punk and hardcore punk, where one could just make up a name for a derivative work. However, this doesn't mean that this subgenre shouldn't receive the same fair shake as each of the genres located on List_of_hardcore_punk_subgenres. This article would definitely need expansion to match the quality of the rest of them though. Inomyabcs (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page needs to be put to Rest, Permanently, for the Third time. This wouldn't even be going on but an IP who never edited before somehow knew on first edits how to change a re-direct. This page reeks of dishonesty. This page is as relevant as if someone said because the Rolling Stones named their tour "Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour" that "Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle" is now a genre. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. I know how to change a redirect because I am a programmer about to study computer science at university. I can see how big the community is and I know how to distuingish it from pop-punk and metalcore/hardcore. It is a unique genre with a large following and deserves it's own page so that bands can affiliate with the genre properly. It's not shady that I know how to redirect after not editing articles previously because I have coded numerous websites and understand how to navigate one basically through links. Naming a genre Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle makes no sense, but if they named it SteelWheelscore and included bands with a particular mix of both Steel Wheels and hardcore music then it would make sense. Easycore is the clashing of pop-punk music (taking it "easy" as in upbeat) and hardcore (as in the core) to create easycore. Your analogy is irrelevant. 109.159.28.141 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — 109.159.28.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking your bolded "Delete" because you already said "Delete" above and you only get to "vote" once. You can comment as much as you like, but only one bolded !vote per person. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. Nothing to show this meets notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 13:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no Genre "easycore" its the name of a Tour. Bands who name a tour and have other groups on the tour don't all of a sudden become the "name" of said Tour. Its Laughable. The only sources are from the last 2 and 3 years. This supposed fakery has "supposedly" "existed" since early 2000s around supposedly "2002 or 2003". Its pretty obvious that the creating of supposed sources coincide with someones fantasy about creating a genre. A simple check on page creating and "sources" all coincide. Also, its not hard to ask a buddy who writes for some small unreliable online "music" page to add the word to supply a trumped up reference. Thats exactly what has happened here. If this were a real "genre" there would have been soucres all along from the supposed "inception" date until now. There isn't. Notice how much my position is Accurate. Accurate so much that it makes the "pro lets create a fake page" people angry and the argue to "me" an not to the reasoning of why this page needs to exist, a sure sign of deception. Which is what its been. I wouldn't doubt some of these people with the pro stance are the Same person. Even the frequency of anyone caring about this page that was, Laid to Rest Three Times, also shows this needs immediate deletion. A look at this history even as recent as June 23 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chunk!_No,_Captain_Chunk!&action=history shows how many "IPs" with first edits and other issues have been going on with pages like this since this page has existed, Its always POV. Never accuracy. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm striking through the word "delete". You are free to comment as much as you like, but please precede your second and later comments with something like Comment rather than repeating "delete". Among other reasons, if you cast more than one bolded "vote", it confuses the bot that archives these discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete lack of attention from reliable sources. The sources provided, and the ones which survive at our French-language article, are content farms and fan-built or fan-submitted blogs. It's possible that this was used at one time by one pop-punk band to describe itself and/or one of its tours, but that does not make it a notable genre. Reliable sources writing about it make it notable, and there just aren't any. Redirecting to pop punk is also unadvisable: per the previous deletion discussion, "easycore" can refer to several very different genres of music, but if we don't have content describing any of them, then redirection is unhelpful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Easycore_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1167406170"