Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackfoot


 * 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. Tone 15:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Jackfoot

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an original research essay about a self-invented term for an unrecognized and unattested musical "genre" (which retroactively reclaims decades-old songs from other genres as being part of it), not a real encyclopedia article about a real musical genre that's actually recognized as such by real sources. I would simply delete it as a hoax, but there's already been a prod attempt which the creator (whose username is User:Jackfoot, raising the possibility of WP:COI here, too) circumvented by way of WP:OTRS instead of through normal prod procedures. It's still a pretty clear and unequivocal delete, however. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable, secondary sources at all that I can find. --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  22:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt: given the COI and other shenanigans. I'm certainly happy to cite it as failing WP:HOAX as well as WP:NOR and WP:BULLSHIT.  It's bad enough that every wannabe music blogger and garage band is claiming to have invented A New Musical Genre Which Captures Their Unique Sound.   Ravenswing  17:59, 6 December 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.