Deletion of AcoustID

Comment: Extremely curt nomination with no evidence of .  While the claim is it fails  that assumes is is in-scope for that criteria, I'm not immediately convinced it is.  On quite interesting note is :MusicBrainz has a specific mention at NMUSIC, and then at the :MusicBrainz article AcoustID and Chromaprint are specifically mentioned (albeit uncited) in the context of fingerprinting.  Should a competent and diligent BEFORE have picked this up, and perhaps also that the Chromaprint algorithm is perhaps the more important related topic.  In all events nom. seems in good standing, albeit seemed to have a high rate of reverting problematic edits, possibly an indicator of automation, and their talk page had lots of unsigned (by others) discussions. In passing note I've added (Chikanbanjar, 2017) to the article and claim RS towards GNG/SIGCOV
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:NMUSIC)

Comment: per Djm-leighpark and . While this is a music related topic, it doesn't fit under any of the NMUSIC SNG descriptors. It also doesn't fit under  as it's not tied to a company and is an open source free web service. As such, our default policy guideline in this case is GNG and I agree with Djm-leighpark that SIGOV has been met with the addition of the sources recently added. Best
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:NCORP)

Comment: easily passes  in this case. Worth looking at  which isn't a policy, but relevant as well if it didn't pass GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NSOFTWARE)