Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psybient

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psybient

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

Fails notability requirements. I've watched this article for over a year, and nothing has improved. I have even tried to look for sources periodically, but I have never found anything. The only two sources in this article do not actually deal with psybient, but the history of the Goa trance scene. A search reveals that the term is in usage, but I can't find enough info to actually justify a whole article.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept because I was specifically searching for this term having found a lot of this music on You Tube. However it could be just a section on Ambient music Kildwyke (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would work. A section in the ambient or psytrance articles might be better than deletion.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, as someone who would probably say that psybient is their favourite type of music, I can assure you that it's very much an important part of music that deserves its own page. It's quite different from ambient, much more psychedelic as the name suggests. Ambient music is far too generic a term, and I find a lot of ambient music boring. However, I go to a lot of psybient gigs, and most parties I go to have a psybient room. I was going to suggest that you could merge it with psychill which is very similar, but have just realised that there is no page on psychill, which means that there is an even more urgent need for psybient to exist as a separate page. --Tris2000 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per ¿3fam I am never too fond of deleting content. But here, I can't see notability (i.e. reliable references) to justify an article of its own. CeesBakker (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bad references. One link is dead and the others do not seem noteworthy at all. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there are clearly sourcing issues, might be best reducing the content and moving to psytrance. Semitransgenic _talk. 11:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have deleted most new genres as not notable; see Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Music for examples. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2012 (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.