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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. — Gwalla | Talk 22:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic music edit

Acoustic music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

While naturally our instinct may be to say "keep" because the topic sounds notable, the article is in bad shape. Little has changed since it was 1st nominated for deletion over four years ago. Most of the keep votes were on the grounds that the article needed improvement rather than a delete, but that has not occurred. Three books [1], [2], [3] were cited in that debate, yet the first one is merely a book about the Woodstock Music Festival. The second one merely mentions the term several times in passing over the course of two pages. The third source is the best one out of the three, yet a quick glance through it seems to reveal a similar problem with the other source: It only mentions the term in passing on several pages. I suppose it could be used to cite Led Zeppelin as an example of a group who did acoustic songs, but that would seem to be the extent of the usefulness of that source.

The delete votes in the discussion were over concerns that the article is a dictionary term as well as original research. Seems like a good time to take it back to afd, since its been four years and the article remains largely unchanged from that discussion. Johnny338 (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I've got no idea why stub, cleanup and other relevant tags weren't put on this article rather than a delete tag. The article doesn't seem to be in terrible shape ... which is just as well. it was viewed 8301 times in the last 30 days. There are parallel articles in many other languages and, amongst other things, it would be an embarrassment to en Wikipedia if we didn't have our version. Many editors have arrived at articles that needed cleanup and done just that. Please remove the delete tag. Gregkaye (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn. Per User:Gregkaye. Johnny338 (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2014 (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.