Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emotronic (3rd 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emotronic[edit]

Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's your rationale for deletion? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, no notability, seems to be somebody's offhand OR on 'inventing' a NN neologism for a genre. (We don't need 'ambivamp', 'metalligothdustrial' or similar compound terms every time somebody wants to get clever about combining two terms.) Ronabop (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Open and shut deletion case, should have been speedy deleted as re-creation of deleted material.Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: re-created deleted article, neologism. JamesBurns (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd say I agree with Ronabop. -XClaudiox (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V, WP:N. Even the article says the topic is not notable: "Emotronic is not a widely recognized genre, mainly used on the social networking site MySpace." --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2008 (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.