The result was keep. Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shoddy list lacking sufficient references. Information displayed in the list could be better represented using categories. I Help, When I Can.[12] 05:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of Off Topic: It is about time Wikipedia set specific ground rules for list inclusion. While ideally entries should be be reliably sourced within the list article itself as every article is supposed to be reliably sourced and non dependent on what goes on in other articles dependence on the main article has been the de facto standard for so long that unless most of the Wikipedians get laid off and divorced reliably sourced in the "main" article is more realistic.
I would also like Wikipedia to make the jump to user only entries. In my experience 90-95% of the non/unreliable sourced/non-notable entries are made by non users. This problem is particularly bad on music and list articles. For a more detailed argument see my user page. Edkollin (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the list itself should contain references, or whether it's sufficient for the source for the genre classification to only be in the article listed, is sometimes a matter of contention generally with lists, and I don't particularly care about that point. Regardless, that's a matter for normal editing and discussion to resolve. I undid Curb Chain (talk · contribs)'s blanking of all entries that are unsourced within the list, as this is contrary to editing policy. By all means remove any entry that you believe in good faith does not belong, and probably any article listed that itself does not even mention synth pop as the subject's genre, but we do not indiscriminately blank content that can be sourced just because it isn't at present, particularly not if it's actually sourced within another article, as it may be in many of the entries. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]