Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep C


 * 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 and redirect to C (musical note). The consensus is not overwhelming, but the WP:V issues are not really addressed. The article is still sourceless. Sandstein (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Deep C

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is not a real musical term. It does not exsist in any music dictionary or other resource I can find. Nrswanson (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the term deep C is not a true musical term. I have a Bachelors degree in Music Education and a Masters in Vocal Pedagogy and I have never heard of this term. I have also looked in three different Music Dictionaries and the term is not mentioned at all.Nrswanson (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm trusting the nom here -- someone with a degree in Music Education is probably more knowledgeable than even someone who taught himself to play piano at age four (i.e., myself). This doesn't appear to be a real musical term at all. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dhartung, may not be a "true" term but seems widely used enough. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral per Nrswanson; seems to be a bit of contradiction regarding this and similar terms so I'll just shut up. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, a rare but perhaps obsolete term attested as the bottom of the range of the violoncello. In the memoirs of Hector Berlioz he writes of a deep C on the chromatic trombone. Cecil Forsyth's Orchestration discusses the Deep C multiple times, noting For the sake of completeness one must add that an occasional player of greatness can just touch the deep C, a note which theoretically does not exist on the instrument at all (the valve-horn). --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Again, WP:IDONTKNOWIT doesn't apply. The term is constantly in use.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Interesting that the term has been used sparingly but just because some people have used the term does it make it acceptable to present it as factual term when the wider musical community does not use it or is not familiar with it. I think presenting it as such would be a misrepresentation of the truth. The article should reflect the fact that it is an obscure term and it should cite resources if it is to be kept. As it is now it should be deleted. Also, the term low C is often used in place of Deep C as in the case of most of the bassoon instructional books I use with my students. The author of these articles on the C note seems to be trying to give a standardized terminology when it comes to C where none exsists. Typically low C is used when refering to the lowest C on an instrument regardless of where that pitch falls. Making destinctions between low C and deep C is definitely not common practice as evidenced by most instrumental instruction books. And I challenge the asssertion that Deep C is in constant use now or at any other time in musical history. Seems to be only used incidentally by a handful of musicians. Nrswanson (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Term is not included in Glossary of musical terminology--Kleinzach (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless multiple non-trivial third party publications can be provided to support the article. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to C (musical note). It will get some hits in search, so just send it over to that article.
 * Delete If Forsyth and a translator of Berlioz have used the term it can still be mentioned in a footnote to the Pitch (music) article, which should discuss nomenclature(s). Sparafucil (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep same as above. Keep and explain better. DGG (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How can any of you vote to keep an article with no references? I personally don't trust the above mentioned comments that the term was used by certain individuals until they show verifiable resources to back that up (a.k.a adding them to the article). As far as I am concerned the term deep C is still utter fiction until proven otherwise and should be deleted. I commented on the factual inaccuracy on the pages talk page in early February. It has been two months and no one has responded or added verifiable resources. This page has had plenty of time to improve itself and hasn't. Probably because the term is fake.Nrswanson (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2008 (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.