Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jank music

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. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jank music[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article, based far too strongly on primary sources and not nearly enough on reliable ones, about a musical "genre" so new and so little recognized that it's actually directly named after the only band that's actually properly sourceable as a practitioner of it. (One earlier band self-publishes itself into the genre after the fact, and one other progenitor is claimed but not sourced at all, but no reliable sources use this term to describe either of those bands' music -- the only reliable source evidence of the term "jank" being used at all is in reference to "Casely and the Jank", and despite the earlier bands improperly sourced here, one of the C&tJ sources calls C&tJ the creators of the genre. And even the description of the genre here is derived largely from C&tJ's own PR claims about it rather than from objective analysis by real music critics.) As always, every new genre term that a band invents for themselves to communicate how much more unique their own music is than everybody else's is not automatically a valid Wikipedia article topic; to qualify for an article, a genre term needs to be reliably sourceable as actually having currency in music criticism, not just in the genre creator's own EPK. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tough call here. There are several sources cited, some appear to be reliable and independent, acknowledging a new musical style attributed to that one band, although the nominator is correct, the sources are just parroting the band's own claims about itself. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Notability (music), which requires at least two of something (albums released, notable band members in a band), maybe it should be expanded to require that a musical genre should be attributable to at least two bands. But then we'd be making up new rules, sensible as it may be to do so in this case, and AFD isn't the forum to do that. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is something off-kilter with this whole description. Normally I would propose to merge this into the next higher notable level of abstraction, but this is too obscure to appear in Pop music without having undue weight there. This seems like a sub-subgenre, but it is impossible to tell from the article as written which subgenres of pop it even resembles. However, if sources can be found associating it with existing sub-genres, merge into whichever one is most appropriate. bd2412 T 01:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.