Why this is not an aesthetic[]
Hello editors, I'm proposing this page for deletion, and I wanted to explain my reasoning, particularly in light of a revert of the candidate for deletion tag bringing up a former admin's opinion as a defense. The page is fundamentally flawed, and its past editorial support does not change that. It's a category error because it attempts to document a genre of media, not a cohesive, curatable aesthetic. In fact, the page's own introduction admits a lack of "defining visuals," which is a fundamental contradiction for an aesthetic entry.
The page is also a conceptual dump of an enormous range of media and subcultures, all of which are better documented on more specific pages like Analog Horror or even Old Web. To be more specific, the media lists are a perfect example of this problem. They are so extensive and include such obscure, low-view-count YouTube channels that they start to resemble a directory for a niche community rather than a curated list of notable examples. This suggests that the page is being used for self-promotion. Also, the inclussion of things like "roblox tycoon songs" and TheFatRap are a flawed "argument from association"; the logic that because something exists on the internet, and digital horror also exists on the internet, that the two must be related. This uncurated, everything-and-nothing approach is a red flag for an invalid page.
Furthermore, the history section uses unverifiable, subjective terms like "unintended birth" and "true resurrection" without providing external sources to back these claims. This makes the page a form of original research. It is uncuratable and violates our core principles, and keeping it would set a precedent for allowing a broad genre to masquerade as a singular aesthetic. For these reasons, I believe it should be deleted. Gwenanenn (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)