Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Chord


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Dream Chord

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a non-notable neologism that has no evidence of being used regularly by composers or musicians. No references can be found for the dream chord. If this article gets deleted, we'll also need to delete the link to it in Chords and La Monte Young. Snotty Wong  converse 18:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not really a neologism, since it's a term that has been in use since the 60's at minimum. I have added some references to the article. There are more to be found, if you'd like me to find them. The first reference, this, is quite useful, since it has a significant amount about the Dream Chord. From the references that I found and the significant long term coverage that there seems to be on the term "Dream Chord", I feel that it reaches the notability standards. Silver  seren C 22:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that any of those sources establish the notability of a "dream chord". It appears to be a term that a composer used to describe a chord in one of his pieces.  The sources only prove that the term exists, but don't explain why it's notable.  In other words, it's not clear to me how this article could ever become anything more than a permastub.    Snotty Wong   verbalize 23:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article can definitely be expanded to, at the very least, start class with the references I added, along with the other stuff out there. Though i'm thinking that it would require someone who knows more about music. Silver  seren C 23:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Its not a neologism and I can find references to it ("Dream chord" and young on google books finds a good number of references), so those parts of nomination are incorrect and can be disregarded.  The real question is whether this "dream chord" is sufficiently notable to have its own article (and be included on the chords template), or whether the content should just be kept on the La Monte Young page, with "Dream Chord" being redirected to the Young BLP.  There is no question that Young is notable (11 wikis have bios on him, btw) and that the dream chord as part of his contribution to the development of minimalism is notable.  The article creator is not a prolific editor, but does seem to be a musician.  As of right now, unless experts chime in otherwise, I'm inclined to go the redirect route, without prejudice to future recreation if importance is shown.--Milowent • talkblp-r  18:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for the record, I have a bachelor's degree in music performance, and I've never heard of the Dream Chord. However, I could see something like this being more popular with composers and music historians, of which I am neither.  I'm just not seeing enough coverage in sources that would allow this article to eventually become something like Tristan chord.    Snotty Wong   verbalize 18:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, at least from what I can find.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: per Silverseren - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2010 (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.