Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomcore (2nd nomination)

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 to Hardcore techno. Any content that can actually be verified by a source can be pulled from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doomcore[edit]

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

Another sub sub sub genre. This one is slightly slower then one of the other sub genres. Ridernyc (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge There is very little citation and this seems to be a stretch to deem this "genre" necessary for its own page. Perhaps merging this article appropriately would also be a good option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volbeatfan (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given the huge amount of nontrivial, independent references in news sources, books and (fewer as relatively new) research literature, I see no case whatsoever for deleting. gidonb (talk) 20:42, 2 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]
Merge to hardcore techno and disambig between that and sludge metal (which is also sometimes called "doomcore", as it fuses doom metal and hardcore punk). In general, if a subgenre term is in use (i.e. it is a valid search term), but not independently notable, the proper thing to do is merge and redirect to the parent genre. This can be done without taking it to AfD, as no admin-only actions are necessary. — Gwalla | Talk 19:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It would make sense that sludge metal would also be called doomcore, considering how the genre was assembied in the first place. However, I don't want to sound skeptical, but I have not heard sludge metal be referred to as such before. I would like to see links which call sludge metal "doomcore". Thank you. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - [1] and [2] contain a couple of examples. Also, doom metal mentions it as a synonym. — Gwalla | Talk 07:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I should point out that the previous AfD was for an article under this title that described the metal subgenre. — Gwalla | Talk 22:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. That is my default vote, but if there are some sources that come along, I would be open-minded to supporting the keep option. By the way, I really don't like the "representative tracks" section; it does not reflect what should be on wikipedia. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Basically agreed. Only major hits or important developments should be included, and they should be inlined as prose, not lists, so their prominence or importance can be expounded upon (IOW, verified). "Representative tracks" list sections, as they stand now, are spam magnets. — Gwalla | Talk 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem with a merge of unsourced material is that it dumps that problematic text into another article. If you can find verifiable and reliable sources then I could be convinced of making this a redirect, but if that can be done why are they not in this article? The feeling that an article should exist is not really an argument for keeping it, lack of evidence of notablility is a good arguement for deletion.--SabreBD (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frivolous non-existent genre. Not enough notable sources to support this article. Personally I've heard this term quite a bit, but used for sludge metal and even then I think think the term is ridiculous. 76.114.42.231 (talk) 09:28, 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.