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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Gaze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is badly written, unnecessary, and lacking citations. Ybrik222 (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The article does have some references and some bands do use it, but otherwise it might be too trivial to have it's own article. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Nomination does not advance a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:DEL#REASON and WP:BEFORE#10. Meph^talk 04:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable: New Musical Express, The Guardian, Rolling Stone Magazine, and The Oxford Student.

Possibly reliable: Holy Moly and Clash Music. Meph^talk 04:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nomination suggests only that the article needs to be improved, which it does. It's a genre that has received sufficient coverage, so there's no reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Meph, I think the sources that have been turned up are enough to meet the GNG. Also, AfD is not cleanup. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2011 (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.