Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthwave

Synthwave

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

This article should be deleted because this is not a genre with enough exposure and is pretty much dedicated to strictly a fan base with no strong Third Party sources. As shown on the talk page by a user who objected to the original idea for deletion. Even talk page reasoning for keeping the page fails WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. There is not a strong enough definition of the genre from any serious academic or even popular culture source nor is there any third-party sources describing their sound in this way. Just because people are using the term, doesn't mean we can hold onto it until we get some actual back up from real sources. Not just bands promoting themselves, internet message board conversation about sub-sub-sub genres and so forth. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 31. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I deleted this as an expired PROD, and it was then restored after an objection - I pointed out at the time that it is lacking in good in-line reliable secondary sources (and still is). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to new wave music. Some sources that are not cited in the article ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) indicate that this genre actually existed; however, there is too little information to actually form a notable article. It can be passed on with a few sentences on the new wave article in my opinion. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't re-direct, those articles label several things as synthwave but don't offer up a definition nor do they state it's relationship to new wave. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've found this article, which I believe offers a definition. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that, but it sort of ignores anything else mentioned in the article. Is that one source make it worth an article on it's own? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely revamped the article, adding extremely credible sources and such. This definitely suffices based on wikipedia's guidelines. There should be no issues anymore. Kaleb Alfadda (Kaleb Alfadda|talk) 14:06, 18th June 2014 {MST USA} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.47.100 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]