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. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (oldid) czar 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture music[edit]

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

Dubious music genre article. Coin945 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#The recent music genre AFDs--Coin945 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources of any kind.--SabreBD (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabrebd, I can't speedy close this discussion unless you retract your delete !vote. Do you still have a case for deletion considering the below and nom withdrawal? czar 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it withdrawn.--SabreBD (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not so much a genre in the sense of the many other nominations today, more a conceptual term under which Erik Satie placed several compositions designated for a special usage. Anyway, while the article can clearly be improved, that is not the purpose of AfD and a Google Books search turns up various books immediately indicating its influence. AllyD (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can it be improved? Sourcing trumps speculation any day.--Coin945 (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per AllyD's sensible observations and the evidence from Beautiful music, P-Funk and Trad jazz. Andrew D. (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As previous discussed, each AFD should be taken on a case-by-case basis. While some of these music genres may turn out to have sufficient sourcing after a deep Google search, that does not mean a Speedy Keep vote is justified for every other nomination.--Coin945 (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes but it is fundamentally each AfD nomination which should be prepared on a case-by-case basis. It is simply not possible to complete WP:BEFORE due diligence on 8 articles in the space of one minute. AllyD (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the nom just went on a massive drive-by afd splurge, did zero background work. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:37, 25 October 2015 (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.