Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"MUSIK - Musikhistoria och musikaliska grundbegrepp"


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE.  Rob e  rt  00:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

"MUSIK - Musikhistoria och musikaliska grundbegrepp"
This article in Swedish has been on WP:PNT since 16 September. Physchim62 10:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Pages needing translation into English:
 * Appears to be in Sweedish. Looks like a cut& paste, quiite probably a copyvio, so a quik tranlation, enough to determins what to do with the articel, might be enough. DES (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Swedish indeed. There's a first chapter, "MUSIK - Musikhistoria och musikaliska grundbegrepp", as well. The title means "Music - History of music and basic musical terms". The capitalized subheadings mean "Basic acoustic terms" and "The acoustics of musical instruments", which probably tells you what you need to know about the content. Both texts end with the statement "The text is written in 1974-1977 and edited in 2005 by Anne Jaenzon." Considering the fact that both these articles were posted by User:Jaenzon, who have placed similar dumps on both the user page and the user talk page, I'd say this might be a case of a well-meaning newcomer wanting to contribute what is probably pre-existing personal work, but not knowing how to go about it. As for the value of the texts, I don't know. At a quick glance, they don't look particularly well-written, although they might well be factually correct. I am not familliar enough with acoustics to say. Without checking, my guess is that they mostly duplicate existing content. / Alarm 22:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have placed a note on the user's talk page, which seems to have been the subject of a blanking/revert war by various IP users. We'll see what happens -- if there is no response I'll probably take these to WP:AfD. DES (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The quick look i had + the somewhat limited knowledge I have about the subject seems to indicate that it is factually correct. However, even if the copyright issue is solved it would need som SERIOUS work. It is way to academic the way it's written now (it's like some rubbish I would write... :). I concur with the suspicion that it is probably a well meaning newbie that has just pasted his school work. /probell (Talk) 22:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it's well-written (which is debatable, but I'd say not spectacularly) or factually correct (which it is, as far as I could determine from a very quick look) this kind of article does not belong at Wikipedia. Wikibooks, perhaps, if anything. I haven't verified this, but I'm certain everything in this article is covered in the right articles. If someone wants to read through all this to see if there's anything to merge, be my guest, but I think we might as well delete it. EldKatt (Talk) 09:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up, and the above comments imply it's mostly unsalvageable anyway. --Angr/undefined 05:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Angr --Apyule 07:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Been around long enough and hasn't been translated. Masterhatch 10:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.