Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music and speech

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 delete. Basically patent nonsense. Sandstein 12:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music and speech

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

The bulk of the article is vague, meaningless, or trivial to the point of tautology, on the whole lacking in coherent information, so that there's no way to simply clean it up. I've tried to figure out how to save it, but if there's an article to be written on this subject, someone knowledgable about it would have to start it from scratch. I gather there might have been some substance to the article when it was created, but that was before the copyrighted material was removed. So we have what remains to work with, and that's what I'm evaluating.

"One of the main offshoots of music": What is an "offshoot of music" and what are the main ones? I don't understand the second sentence in the lead. After that, "Teenagers are by far the most easily influenced ...": by what? to do what? The remainder of the teenagers section is the only clear assertion in the whole piece.

The adults section tells us that we lack information on how "music combined with speech" affects adults. We learn that there was a Washington baby study. Of what? Concluding what? We learn that it wasn't the latest study (because there were others since). Some institutions are "looking into" an unspecified "this" new study ... and?

Finally, we are informed that programs on which people speak also have background music, which frequently matches the mood of the scene in tone. It includes no information about the impact that using background music on top of speech has, which would at least give us some encyclopedic insight. Largoplazo (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline G1 as is. It also appears that the first four revisions were RD1'd; the fourth and fifth revisions removed a total of 3324 out of 6418 bytes, or about 52% of the article. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes, noticing my background in linguistics, suggested I take a look here with an eye toward improving the article. If there's any way to look at the text that was removed, it might well give us a hefty clue to what the remaining stuff was about. But those versions have been removed for copyvio. Does anyone know what references the deleted text cited?
The five (remaining) citations are all to the same work in different formats, and Worldcat says there's a library near me that has it. If I can have some time, say a week, I'll see what I can do.
The writing is also abominable; I could hardly bear to read it. Well, that's part of why I do a lot of copyediting. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written, lacking context, largely sourced to a single work. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 10:12, 15 January 2018 (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.