Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent dance music (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   speedy close. No deletion rationale provided, no delete !votes standing. Assumingly the wrong forum but it seems there is no consensus to merge, either. (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent dance music
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Come on... it's about time it's merged with electronica. Special Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 15:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: Mr Special Cases offers no substantiation for his nomination. The previous nomination ended with 100% keep (Articles for deletion/Intelligent dance music). A re-nomination is supposed to address the points raised in the previous discussion. -- intgr [talk] 16:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —-- intgr [talk] 16:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per previous AFD that was pretty much a snowball of keeps and per completely worthless WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Vodello (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks OK where it is to me. It's even referenced, which is not all that common in some of the areas of 'popular' music... Peridon (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator already suggested a merge with electronica a couple days ago, arguing that the term IDM is silly. I'm sure many agree, including my friends who semi-coined the term with tongue firmly planted in cheek, but the silliness is irrelevant, and the term has considerable traction, as the previous AfD revealed. The nominator also asserts that all the music in the genre "is plain dance music", which is a rather dubious claim. He found no immediate support for the merge and apparently does not want to talk about it, so he seems to be resorting to AfD instead. Further, as he's rather brief with his words, it's hard to tell if he seriously believes the genre doesn't exist, or if he simply doesn't like the name and wants it to be abandoned in favor of the term he prefers. In either case, he's suggesting that IDM/braindance/whatever is either an alias for electronica or or just a branch of electronica not notable enough for its own article. But even if it were treated as a branch of electronica, there's enough content that it'd need to be split into its own article anyway, and would need a name. We can argue about the article title (and already have), but that's not something that should be pursued through the AfD process. Trying to be constructive, I pointed out in the proposed merge discussion that electronica does sometimes refer quite specifically to IDM, and this is something that could stand to be mentioned in the article, if a decent source can be found (at present it's only anecdotal). However I also pointed out that the '90s/early '00s marketing efforts by major labels in North America resulted in electronica being far more often strongly associated with a much wider range of styles and artists, including relatively commercial, not-very-experimental "plain dance music" that few would categorize as IDM, so it wouldn't be correct to commit to any action which would imply that IDM (or whatever you want to call it) and electronica are perfectly synonymous. —mjb (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.