Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chillwave

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. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chillwave[edit]

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

Another sub genre of a a sub genre of a sub genre. This one created by one person 2 years ago. Again these dance sub genres are endless and barley unique from one another. Ridernyc (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

totally wrong, this is an up to date and a useful description of a popular genre that is more than just a "sub genre of a etc etc" Chillwave despite its annoying name is a very varied genre and also not really a dance genre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.95.74 (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perhaps move to glo-fi (Pitchfork, to the extent that we care about what they think, seems to be favoring the latter lately). A term in regular use by indie rock publications to refer to Neon Indian, Toro Y Moi, Washed Out, Memory Tapes, and others. Chubbles (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Google News confirms usage in multiple sources. However, there seem to be several other terms in competition for the name of this genre ("glo-fi", "hypnagogic pop"). And most of the mentions I could find that addressed the genre itself were about how short-lived it has been. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of its notability. I can't think of any parent genre it could be easily merged with. I'm on the fence for now. — Gwalla | Talk 20:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I consider this article fairly useful and I think that the genre itself is by far popular enough to be included on Wikipedia. Mainstream and non-mainstream magazines have been writing about it and there are heaps of blog posts about it. Personally, I believe there is some chance it will grow even more in popularity (but the opposite is of course possible too). Even if popularity would fade, it still has been a popular music trend worth mentioning. On changing the name of the article to glo-fi: chillwave is the term I have come across the most and it is also the term with the most Google hits. SoQos (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been mentioned somewhat frequently by a lot of underground music news sources (particularly Pitchfork) in the last year. Whether it sticks around is yet to be seen, but it is definitely a legitimate musical movement at the moment. Other terms are competing for the title as well but chillwave appears to be winning out in that department. bob rulz (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty much just described a neologism. Ridernyc (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you see it as inherently negative that the term chillwave could be seen as a neologism. One could also elaborate on that in the article and mention that it could be seen as a neologism, because maybe that is kind of what it is. Especially since there are atleast two competing names for pretty much the same kind of music. SoQos (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEOLOGISM not me manual of style sees it that way. Ridernyc (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know about that. I am new here. Anyway, in the "Avoid neologism"-article it says support for neologisms must come from reliable sources. Well, combining the three terms chillwave, glo-fi and hypnagogic pop, assuming that they describe pretty much the same thing, I think there is enough support from reliable sources. Two Seattles music journalists, The Wire and The Stranger are already mentioned. One could complement these with Pitchfork reviews and articles that discuss the terms, and other sources too if that has to be done. The neologism is, for me, only the term and not the style of music. The problem, then, is selecting the most appropriate title for the article. SoQos (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combining the terms would be WP:OR and WP:SYN both very bad and against policy Ridernyc (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great point if several sources I know of (including one already cited in the article) wouldn't be combining the terms. SoQos (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would support a move to the term "glo-fi" as the terms has had more currency in blogs and music news as the term seems to better capture the genre's sound/vibe (ie. use of low-fi vintage synthesizers). I did find the comment about "bringing back cocaine in a big way" slightly laughable though - acid and psychedelica, some of the genre's supposed inspirations, being arguable almost the antithesis of cocaine in terms of vibe and influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.205.202 (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is chillwave to me is not necessarily lo-fi. I mean, Memory Tapes doesn't sound very lo-fi, while Washed Out and Toro Y Moi sound kind of lo-fi I think they pretty much only use a computer. Therefore, considering that these three bands feel kind of central to chillwave/glo-fi/hypnagogic pop, I believe glo-fi is kind of misleading. But maybe this isn't about what I think is most logical and more about what term Pitchfork and other magazines/blogs use. SoQos (talk) 11:47, 6 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.