Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slutwave

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slutwave

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails General notability guideline. Not enough reliable, significant coverage. Most sources are just blogs or tabloid articles. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Music. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing the GNG. It's also a WP:BLP problem to list off artists when the article openly states it's a pejorative, and the sourcing is concurrently so weak. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 in the article itself is a post-graduate research paper, neither 'blog nor tabloid. And doi:10.5209/INFE.54975 that discusses this is a peer-reviewed journal article. Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dear God, no. You'd be slapped if you told an artist they were in this genre and nearly all the links are to users who made public playlists under the name (and in regards to #2, Academia.edu is a pay-for-play site). Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find a couple of possibly usable sources which mention slutwave (e.g. [1], [2]), but no in depth coverage. Of the sources cited in the article, this is an opinion piece which might be usable under WP:RSOPINION, while this is apparently self-published by a student; I can find no evidence of publication by a reliable source. Given the inevitable BLP concerns around this article mentioned by Sergecross we should expect much better sourcing than this; the claim to notability here is tenuous at best. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WINAD Mach61 (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2023 (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.