| abstract | - Appears to be a non-notable neologism, the only source provided appears to be a Twitter status update. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
* Delete as neologism. No reliable sources. No evidence of third-party coverage, or anything but a single tweet. DarkAudit <--- Look at this. (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC) <--- Look at this and use for a source I'll let one of you wikidiks fix it up. But seriously, this is a legit thing and just because you only listen to alt-rock indie hipster trash doesn't mean that something with half a million google search results isn't real. The term is not mainstream yet so the lack of sources will soon change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.27.252 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
* Delete as non-notable if even non-existent terminology with no reliable sources covering the topic. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 02:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
* Comment I'm not committing myself at this point, but a quick Google search suggests that the term may actually have passed into the language as the name for a genre, as the article claims (without evidence). --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep In addition to the Google results above, the term is found at Google News in two languages, including this which describes the genre in some detail. Some of these sources need to be incorporated into the article, but it is clearly not a neologism. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU tp* 01:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
* Week delete without prejudice to recreation when more sources have written about the genre. Usage of a term in a few places is not enough to justify there being a Wikipedia article about it. Complextro certainly appears to be a genuine genre, albeit a relatively modern one, but with little or no documentation out ther in reliable sources to describe it, it would be hard to write an article that lives up to our standards. Looking for reliable sources, I see little more than a number of articles describing artists who perform it, but without providing much insight into what it is, along with some press-release-inspired articles about a company who has released a collection of samples for use in its production. If it were not for this source (which has been published since this AFD began) I would be wholeheartedly in favour of deletion. This one, however, does confirm at least some of the information in the article (i.e. that Porter Robinson coined the phrase), and could therefore be the start of a useful article. I don't think it's enough, however. The mentions of complextro in all of these articles are, unfortunately, trivial: they just catalogue that a particular artist performs it, or mention that the artist coined the term, or in the case of the one highlighted by MelanieN above devote a few sentences to describing it. And WP:GNG requires non-trivial sources, which, frankly, aren't out there. JulesH (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
* Comment: Noticed this the other day, which once finally moved to mainspace, could contain this topic as a subsection. As with most new genre buzzwords which might well die out in half a year, it's not notable enough for own article and the current content hardly tells you anything, so I don't think it would matter much if this article were deleted. - filelakeshoe 15:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
|
