Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sludgecore

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. Eluchil404 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sludgecore

Sludgecore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This has been tagged as needing a merge into sludge metal, however, it is completely unsourced. Although a few bands do seem to be widely considered as 'sludgecore', I can find no sources that actually talk about it as a genre. Google throws up unreliable sources, or minor bands being described as it. As such, I believe the article should be deleted, until reliable sources can be found. J Milburn 12:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. STORMTRACKER 94 12:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not a topic i can claim to know anything about but a few searches around the internet show that it is a growing genre. A search of google news will show the term used in a number of reliable sources including CNN. Also listed on a number of music websites. The article does need to be cleaned up, expanded and referenced but i would oppose deletion.--Amxitsa 12:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the google news hits are trivial mentions in articles. For example, the word itself was used in a CNN movie review, but that was the only use of the word. It did have an article in the Dallas Morning News, but unfortunately you are required to pay $3 to see it and therefore is not allowed to be used as a source. So, it fails the notability guidelines for music through and through. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Of course you're allowed to use that as a source — it's a printed source. We're not restricted to what can be accessed for free on the web. Thomjakobsen 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. We can use book or newspaper sources, both of which you must buy (usually), so why not webpages you have to pay to access? Presuming someone is willing to pay to access it... J Milburn 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - this appears to be a protologism (or at least a neologism). /Blaxthos 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I think this subject is notable enough to keep and improve. — DIEGO ^talk 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism not backed up by reliable references. Bands listed in article come from disparate genres like grunge and stoner metal. WesleyDodds 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete These articles on sub-genres sub-sub-genres are out of control. I would say merge, but they shouldn't even be mentioned in the main article, unless they can be properly referenced.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am in agreement with Blaxthos. It appears to be an alternative term for sludge metal, intended to emphasise the genre's hardcore punk roots. ...Superfopp 20:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Terms for new musical genres would have be used many times by major musical programmes/publications before they become unviersally accepted and therefore encyclopedic. This one has not had such widespread use yet. A1octopus 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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.