Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simpsonwave (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 merge to Vaporwave. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsonwave

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

This topic is not notable. Most keep votes on the talk page revolves around people liking the genre more than the subject (and mostly anonymous users at that), rather than anything substantive. All cited sources state to the effect "this is a thing" with little elaboration, and a Google search doesn't even return many relevant results. The page also appears to have a close connection to the "creator" of the genre. Either delete this or merge it into vaporwave.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge - reasons stated above. I've made a section in vaporwave already. --Therealelizacat (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into vaporwave. It's literally just vaporwave with Simpsons visuals. There may have been a lot of reporting on it when it was new and fresh, but there's nothing significant past July 2016, when the creator said he'd stop making more videos (see WP:SUSTAINED). It's notable only in context with vaporwave, which has spawned similarly psychedelic videos. clpo13_(talk) 21:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into vaporwave per Clpo13's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into vaporwave in full agreement with clpo13. --AndreniW (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Had a lot of mixed feelings about this, but I'll go with Weak merge/keep due to the reasons above, but also because the amount of coverage has led to an article that, while a little short, is more than of stub length. While the "notability legacy" arguments, for lack of a better description, here aren't terrible, I can't help but feel that users in deletion discussions of other internet topic articles I've created have made their arguments regarding "significant lasting" of topics, if you will, only based on their opinion, not based on the amount of signifcant coverage as notability does and should work. Also, I have found a September 2016 Geek.com article discussing Simpsonwave, which does dispute Clpo13's claim. I'll also prove the nominator wrong that I have no connection with the creator of the genre, I just wrote the article. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:55, 13 September 2016 (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.