Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient mode


 * 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 merge to Đuro Živković. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 11:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Ancient mode

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable topic, sourced entirely by primary sources authored by the inventor of this musical scale. nearlyevil 665  10:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  nearlyevil  665  10:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: As already being told on your talk page - 3 Minutes after creation nominate for deletion is somewhat by far too quick. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete almost entirely unsourced article. Just because someone says a thing is a thing doesn't make it a thing. Fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge into Djuro Zivkovic. I find the topic quite interesting, but it seems to be a WP:NEOLOGISM. Batmanthe8th (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, on these grounds:
 * Procedural keep, as the article was nominated for deletion three minutes after being published. Without first engaging the author. That's -- not how we build an an encyclopedia, folks. Procedural keep on grounds of not wanting to encourage this sort of thing.
 * On the merits, well, Đuro Živković is pretty notable I guess, Britannica has a meaty article on him where they say he's "among the ranks of distinguished 20th- and 21st-century composers". Both centuries. That's... impressive, and so the presumption would be things that are quite important to his work should be covered somehow. The article says "used by composer Djuro Zivkovic in his compositions since 2004", so that sounds pretty important.
 * So, we want to cover the subject, if we possibly can. So, rather than saying "How can we find an excuse to erase this article", we want to be saying "How can we find a way to keep this article?" We need sources. I don't see any right off, and that's not good, but that doesn't mean they're not out there, and if we delete the article, we're never going to find sources are we. Tag it for sources and come back in six months or a year and see what's what then, mnmh?
 * You could merge it into Đuro Živković's article I suppose. It kind of doesn't matter. But the creator decided to do it as a stand alone, it really six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other, so let's not gainsay and micromanage the editor who did the work. Merge would be OK I guess if we want to be busybodies and not trust our editors when it doesn't help anybody. Herostratus (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The issue of fast nomination has already been addressed. Regardless, the author has had 9 days to address the lack of reliable sources, yet has not done so. I don't see why we should give this subject a six-month pass to pass notability wherein hundreds of others are not given the same treatment every day because they lack sources and are not given a slack because of a perceived inherited value of a sort. I'm OK with a merge. nearlyevil  665  04:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, them maybe a merge is a fair compromise. I mean your points are well taken. Herostratus (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge is the simple answer here. If this subject were indeed notable, we would see significant coverage from reliable sources on it. The editor couldn't find them and neither could we. Rogermx (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge as I believe this article would do better Đuro Živković because of its lack of sources, instead of it being a standalone article. I am concerned about what will happen to it if it does get merged, though. The "Quality" section is the only section in this article that I think could stay in the Đuro Živković article without being challenged and/or removed. The rest is just unsourced material, which will probably remain with a maintenance tag on it until someone gets around to removing it or adding sources (which I don't really see happening, seeing how we couldn't find any). I don't think this article should be deleted if it can be helped, but I do think we should be aware of what we want to be merged, and why, instead of dumping some unsourced content in an existing article. HoneycrispApples (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, "merge" doesn't necessarily mean to merge all the into the other other article. You use your judgment, and I suppose "This material i not ref'd and frankly is quite unlikely to be it seems, so I judge not to include it" is reasonable. I have no idea who does the actual merge when an AfD is close as "merge" or what the procedure is? Would like to be educated if anyone knows. Herostratus (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:MERGE, it looks like any editor can do the merge if an AfD discussion closes as such. Merges are based on consensus, of course, not just the opinion of a single editor, usually that consensus comes from a merge discussion. Since this is an AfD discussion, consensus about what to merge will come from here instead. Here's an essay I found relevant to this: WP:M?. Essentially, we need to establish what we want merged, otherwise whoever's merging this will probably just get confused. So to any other editors who voted to merge here, now would be a great time to voice what you want merged. I believe we could merge the "Quality" section, along with some sentences from the rest of the article for context, but I'm willing to change my opinion, of course. HoneycrispApples (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.