Deletion of Intelligent dance music

Comment: and massively cleanup.  I don't think  applies here as if this is a term made up by the music media (as are most genre designations) and then written about.   Does apply to some of the content of this article and it certainly needs some editing to take out content that doesn't meet , but on the whole I don't think the very concept or existance of the term is  and I don't think  necessarily applies here.  Inherent POV of the term is also not an issue in my opinion, any moreso than it would be with Trash rock or Emo (music)|Emo.  It is a name, nothing more or less.  With all due respect to Richard David James, I don't think his opinion of what his music should be categorized as is in any way relevent here.  What matters is what the music media categorizes him as and if he doesn't like it he can start up a support group of "mislabeled artists" along with the multitudes of musicians who have been lumped into the catch-all of Emo...  All that said
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT||WP:OR||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NEO)

Comment: I see the problems with , especially in terms of giving much credence to the effect of a usenet group without citing anything, but the article can be cleaned up.  The important thing is that the article has a good skeleton to it.  The concept itself was not "made up in school one day" and is certainly not a neologism--it's been around for a decent amount of time and has been fairly widely adopted.  If you're going to consider this a neologism, you might as well AFD Indie pop and Drum and bass as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)