Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acoustic 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 keep. The consensus seems to be very strong for keep. Most of the few objections were that the article was too brief, and I agree it is, but that's just a request to expand it. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic music[edit]

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

Original research essay. Not a genre, and not a style of music. Ridernyc (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a real expression but should be a dictionary entry. Note that the article is not about the topic, which would include all music before the 1950s and most since, but about the expression -- hence a dictionary item. Could be mentioned in the article on "electric music," whatever that is called. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictonary term. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it covers such a huge topic it is hard to see how it could ever be a viable article.--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lot of music genre articles which covers a number of topics, but were split up into separate articles. That's why you can split an article into separate articles. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there's way to much splitting and that's part of the problem we a trying to fix now. Ridernyc (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if it merits deletion. There may be scope for an article under this title, but presently it does appear to be a dictionary entry rather than an encyclopaedia article. I also cannot see how it can be called a 'genre' when you can have acoustic versions of every kind of music under the sun. "Acoustic music" is a description of how music may be performed, it is not a description of the style or genre of the music itself. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it is not a genre unto itself, I would argue that it is more of a performance style very prevalent in some modern genres and in all traditional genres. There is a reason Pandora Radio sorts music based on "acoustic sonority" and there are publications dedicated to "acoustic music" (e.g. Acoustic (magazine) and Acoustic Guitar (magazine). Yes, there may be some original research in the current edit, the term might also be covered in a dictionary, and some might consider this to be a "huge topic," but I don't find these to be sufficient cause for deletion from Wikipedia. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Not a genre, and not a style of music." LOL. It is a type of music. gidonb (talk)
No it's not. It's a method of presenting and performing music. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the keeps in this discussion seem to be solely based on the fact that one day someone may be able to write an encyclopedic article that matches the title. This article dose not exist so I don't understand how we can discuss what might happen in the future. We are talking about the article here not the title. This is a major problem we should not keep things on maybe someday someone might type arguments. Ridernyc (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a reasonable opinion to have, but none of the deletes offer a solid, policy-based argument. The current edit is basically a stub with a brief description and a couple of references. This is a better foundation to build upon than a blank page. I don't agree with your opinion that this is a major problem. -MrFizyx (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am surprised that the acoustic music article is in the bad shape it is. Acoustic music, while not necessarily a genre, is a widespread form of music. I believe this should be a kept article that should be expanded. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 05:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! I found this very helpful towards my research and i believe others would find it useful also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.74.69 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep True, it's not really a genre per se, but it is a style of performance which is the subject of publications. Could be expanded into something along the lines of our remix article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is what can be said about music perform acoustically in a manner befitting an encyclopedia article. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very important topic in music, even if it isn't a genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ems24 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Article needs improvement, but thats not a reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a great article, but a worthy subject.--Rebel1916 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see how this article brings anything new, it is a list deguised as an article and looks more like an essay. -RobertMel (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow. What is being listed? -MrFizyx (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepBooks [1], [2], [3] and periodicals have been writing about it as a meaningful concept since the 1970's, describing some folk music and some rock music played with string instruments lacking direct electric pickups. Clearly appropriate and needed as an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem isnt so much that there is no evidence for acoustic music, but that it is not an appropriate topic for an article. Acoustic music should really include all non-electricied music, including classical and all folk music, not just the modern bits. It seems that what editors really want is an article on acoustic modern folk and rock music, but that doesnt make for a very concise title. Perhaps someone can suggest a suitable alternative title or find a usuable definition in a reliable source.--SabreBD (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. It should be an article about the more general topic. This book could be one resource for such an article. Magazines like acoustic guitar do include discussions of classical and jazz as well as folk and rock. -MrFizyx (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Clear, notable term. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (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.