*I want to echo reading over the reliable sources guidelines. The problem is that almost all of the sources you added to the article for Devil Shit are inappropriate for Wikipedia in general in various ways. Merchant sources such as iTunes are wildly inappropriate to use as sources in any way, shape, or form. Their primary purpose is to sell you something and regardless of the information they impart, they should never be used as a reliable, trivial, or even primary source. Secondly, the YouTube links are almost entirely unusable as many are not uploaded by the people that created the music or represent the artist. This is seen as a copyright violation and it's also something that shouldn't be linked to. In almost every case the only time you should link to a video is if it gives notability... which none of these do. Thirdly, the rest of the links are primary, which will never, ever, ever give notability. Never. You could have a primary source that establishes that someone won a Grammy for a devil shit song, but it still can't give notability. You should only list primary sources after you have a reliable source posted by a non-involved second party. The other problem is that with a lot of these sources the claims of devil shit aren't backed up in the actual source. For instance, this Twitter account doesn't say anything about the artist creating anything in this music genre. Saying that the artist performs devil shit based solely on the Twitter account is considered to be original research. You need reliable second party things that back up the information, but even then you have to understand that verification that the genre is performed by notable or non-notable persons is not enough to show notability for the genre to have an article. A genre can exist, but existing is not notability. Even if you re-add all of the sources and the performers without Wikipedia articles, that won't show that the genre is notable. If anything, it actually does a little more to injure the case here than to show notability. If you have 80+ sources, all of which are unusable for notability purposes and most of which are linked to performers that don't have articles (which many automatically presume means "non-notable" even if this isn't the case), then this tends to make many automatically assume that the topic in question is less notable, which means that they might not search as hard as they otherwise would. It's not right that this happens, but it happens. Sometimes in AfDs less is more.    (｡◕‿◕｡)