Talk:Eastman School of Music Composition Department

Merge
I don't see the need of an independent article for Eastman School of Music's composition department and most of the content should be merged into Eastman School of Music. Also, the tone of the article is closest to a viewbook/prospectus than to an article.--Karljoos (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. It certainly goes against the guidelines here. It's one department of one sub-school of a university. The only reference cited is a puff-piece, and the article is basically an unencyclopedic brochure complete with the requisite peacockery. I suggest seeking advice from WikiProject Universities. Voceditenore (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've proposed this article for deletion.--Karljoos (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Dissent over the decision to merge this with the Eastman School of Music
If given time to develop this section, I believe a cleaned-up version would persuade editors to wave the merger. The scope and magnitude of Eastman's Composition Department warrants its own section. Valid criticism, notwithstanding, one could make a convincing argument that composition at Eastman has impacted music worldwide. The department has few peers; and a merged discussion of it might eclipse the enormity of this institution, itself. Merging Composition into Eastman School of Music (assuming the article was adequately written) would be like having an entry for The University of Texas weighted with facts about its Football team. The trick, here, is to cull facts about its core history. If it's not too late, before merging, I would invite editors with knowledge in music pedagogy to fix this. When I first read both entries, the one for Eastman and the one for composition, I simply dismissed both as being cursory start articles that needed careful editors to schoolmarm an extreme makeover. I am not connected with Eastman.Eurodog 00:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)